Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
Even though I'm one of option-B's proposers, Option C is also basically acceptable for me.
So, let me clarify details of Option C.
> "a notice of application will be posted for at least 7 days on the
> APNIC website"
I also have some concerns for this point.
As Geoff already mentioned, it conflicts with current policy for confidentiality between APNIC and members,
and the effect is not so clear.
Actually, "extra charge" which was included in original option-C is more clear and more acceptable for me
even though I know it is EC matter.
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 Geoff Huston
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:28 PM
> To: Policy SIG
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
>
>
> On 16/07/2009, at 2:49 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
>
> >
> > On 16/07/2009, at 2:43 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> >
> >>> Thanks for posting this data - I wonder if the result would have
> >>> been
> >>> different if Option C had talked about 12 months instead of 24
> >>> months.
> >>
> >> Interesting point. Didn't take a poll on that, but I don't see any
> >> reasons for our community objecting to the change from 24
> months to
> >> 12
> >> months.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the comment!
> >
> >
> > So if I may, A reword of option C based on the comments
> from Andy and
> > Izumi:
> >
> > C ver 1.1 ;)
> >
> > "When a member disposes of address space using this transfer policy
> > the member should not be entitled to any further IPv4 allocations
> > or assigments from APNIC for a period of 12 months or until the
> > "final / 8" assignment measures are implemented. In exceptional
> > circumstances a member can submit a comprehensive plan justifying
> > an allocation and a notice of application will be posted
> for at least
> > 7 days on the APNIC website."
>
>
> "a notice of application will be posted for at least 7 days on the
> APNIC website"
>
> My, possibly incorrect, interpretation of this condition is
> that this
> appears to be a significant departure from current practices where
> applications and the details of applications are treated in strict
> confidence by APNIC staff.
>
> Section 3.1 para g of the APNIC membership agreement commits APNIC to:
> "not disclose to any person (except to the General Secretariat,
> Internet Administration Authorities, staff and contractors
> performing
> necessary work for APNIC who sign a non-disclosure agreement, or as
> legally required to do so) any confidential information which the
> Member provides to the Company"
>
> It would appear to me that this requirement to publish the
> application
> suggest that it would require a new membership agreement, on the
> assumption that applications are treated as confidential information
> under the terms of the current membership agreement.
>
> So is this publication of an application really what was intended
> here? And are folk comfortable with this? Or am I missing something
> here and is something different than disclosure of an application is
> intended in the above text?
>
> I am also unsure what is intended by such a publication of an
> application. Is the secretariat supposed to take note of any comment
> received from posting such a notice? Or not? Or... ? I suppose I am
> trying to understand what purpose is to be served by such a
> notice of
> publication - some clarification here would be appreciated.
>
> thanks,
>
> Geoff
>
> disclaimer - This is still just me, still trying to figure out what
> appears to be some reasonable consensus to allow the policy proposal
> to be redrafted.
>
>
> * 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
>