Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferringaddress
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Manderson [mailto:terry.mndrsn at gmail dot com] On
> Behalf Of Terry Manderson
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:13 AM
> To: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部)
> Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when
> transferringaddress space
>
> Hi Masato,
>
> On 11/03/2009, at 8:54 PM, <myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp>
> <myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp
> > wrote:
> >
> > I agree that there is no way which can completely prevent all
> > cheating,
> > but also I think we should decrease its possibility and discourage
> > it as much as possible.
>
> The devils advocate point of view is why is this cheating? in
> the end
> it is distributing IP addresses to people who need it. Is
> making money
> as a broker bad? So long as it is recorded - I don't think I care.
> (but that may be the free-market capitalist in me talking)
No. The reason why I want to prevent it is that it may runs out remaining IPv4 address
in IANA more earlyer than Geoff's forecast. So, my intention is exacyly same as prop-072's one.
I'm NOT saying that making money nor brokering is bad.
If this policy will acceralate running out of IPv4 address in IANA, it will have huge impact
for many stakeholder, so I'm afraid that many people will complain to address trasnfer itself.
Since I'm strongley supporing address transfer itself, I want to avoid such situation.
> > Regarding this proposal, while there is no "guard" for
> above problem
> > in current revision,
> > my idea can at least decrease and discourage it.
> > So, I can't understand well why you are giving it up so quickly.
> >
> > Or, is there any hidden disadvantage which I have not yet
> aware for
> > my idea?
> >
>
> The reason why I don't see that this policy does harm nor should be
> expanded is that I think APNIC should be focusing being a
> registry and
> not the 'internet company' police.
I basically agree with you, but I also think APNIC should have some responsibility
not to accelerate running out remaining IPv4 address space in IANA.
And, it is a intention of prop-072, isn't it?
I can't understand why you oppose my idea even though both of my idea and prop-072 has same intention.
My position is:
- I support prop-050 (address transfer itself)
- I support prop-072's intention, but current policy has some pithole which multiple paper company can consume
remaining IPv4 address space in IANA very rapidly.
So, I'm just proposing modification for section 4 from
""IPv4 address transfers", are not eligible for APNIC IPv4 assignments and/or allocations for two years"
to
"Allocated resource within x months is not eligible for transfer"
That's all.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Softbank BB Corp.
>
> If someone wants to go to the effort of creating companies to broker
> address space, let them. And if someone needs to pay a broker for IP
> addresses. Then I think we have an entirely different and very sad
> problem.
>
> I would recommend:
> 1) let the lawyers do what they do when necessary as
> requested by the EC
> 2) focus on the act of making IP addresses available to all (if they
> want to get if from a broker or not)
> 3) guide the rest of the world to IPv6
> 4) Let the EC worry about how APNIC membership fees and
> transfer fees
> need to be charged
>
> T.
>