Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
I agree with you that address transfer has several impacts and issues,
so we need to have safeguards for them as much as possible.
On the other hand, you said "it's not a timing to start address transfer" in your original e-mail.
I cannot agree with you about this point and I think a timing should be now.
Certainly, address transfer has several impacts and issues.
However, we should also pay attention that more unawared issues may appear after allowing address transfer
even though some of them are already pointed out. Since we have not yet experienced the world which allows
address transfer, I think it is impossible to list up all impacts and all issues at this stage.
If we could not start it until resolving all issues, I'm afraid it would become "chicken-egg problem" and we never could start it.
If NIRs have concerns for address transfer and don't want to implement it immediately, it is also practical way for NIRs
to allow it only between APNIC direct account holder, get more experiences from it and feedback them to NIRs, I believe.
Best rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Softbank BB Corp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of
> Terence Zhang Yinghao
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:03 PM
> To: Seiichi Kawamura; Skeeve Stevens
> Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
>
> Seiichi/Steeve,
>
> Although we may have different view, may be just defferent
> explanation ,
> I think we have the same concern: 'safeguard that REALLY works',
> which should be an integrated part of the proposal.
>
> Regards
>
> Terence
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Seiichi Kawamura" <kawamucho at msa.biglobe dot ne dot jp>
> To: "Leo Vegoda" <leo.vegoda at icann dot org>
> Cc: "Terence Zhang Yinghao" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>;
> <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
>
>
> > Hello Terence,
> >
> > While I do understand your worries, I must comment agasint
> > some of your opinions. Please exucse me for my rudeness.
> >
> > >> of tranfer and attaches a potential 'value' to IP addresses,
> > >> which may attract some businesses to apply for more IP addresses
> > >> than their actual need, there for speed up the IPv4 addresses
> > >> consumption.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the coundown of /8's is recognized by many
> > and the implicit value is already rising. That's what I feel
> > as a member of an NIR. I would like to know what other NIR
> > members feel.
> >
> > >> More to the point, I feel that policies deal with transfer
> > >> will be easily involved with financial and even legal issues,
> > >> and to address those issues may be very complex.
> >
> > I think the Internet is already full of financial and legal issues
> > today. Its a part of daily life in an ISP. Heck! We pay
> money to JPNIC
> > yearly, and that's already a financial and legal issue itself!
> > How about domains? Isn't it a miracle that its still working? :-)
> >
> > What we need to focus on now, (let me borrow Skeeve's words
> here) is safeguard
> > that REALLY works, or think really works. We also need to
> think about
> > deployment of technological ways of ensuring an IP address
> integrity as well
> > (just as Randy noted in a previous mail).
> >
> > >> we should encourage
> > >> getting address through regular channel and returning address
> > >> to RIR when it's no longer in use.
> >
> > There's still time to work on this, but
> > if encouraging were to make things dramatically better,
> > we woudn't be talking about prop-050 right now.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Seiichi
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
> policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>