Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments

To: <myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
From: "Terence Zhang Yinghao" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:44:07 +0800
Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C5E7B859.26816%leo.vegoda@icann.org> <437484432.27411@cnnic.cn> <054101c9abaf$46d80b00$766df1da@Hao> <437813048.10536@cnnic.cn>

Hi, Masato 

We both have the same view about the safeguards issues. As for timing, I don't suggest we
implement transfer in the last minute, but currently I don't think it's urgent to implement, 
especially when those safeguards we concern about are separated with the proposal.

> 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.
> 

I don't think NIR will delay the implementation if it's beneficial to the whole community.

Regards