Re: [sig-policy] prop-077: Proposal to supplement transfer policyof hist
>> According to the current status of the discussion of transfer
>> policy proposal(prop050),
>> we believe most people favor 'Justification is needed'
>>
>
> I was under the impression that historical address space was excluded
> from the prop50 proposal.
You are right, that's why we propose the same critera for historical.
> So, to play devils advocate, will an organisation bother to attempt to
> transfer historical address space before the 'no justification' period?
>
> In such a situation, I might just wait it out and then transfer some
> large historical allocation after the 'no justification' mark knowing
> that I might not meet the criteria. Or to put it another way, since
> transfer of historical space is voluntary, why would I subject myself
> to the effort of being assessed by APNIC if I can have the historical
> address space under a member account, the assumption being I already
> have access to that prefix.
>
When we make policy, we try to best to make sure resources are
allocated and used according to agreed best current practise.
There is no way to prevent people from taking advantage
before the policy take effect.
> What is the risk to me? would APNIC say I can't have that historical
> space and reclaim it?
We didn't in anyway imply that in our proposal. We just put some
condition on transfer.
> Knowing that in section 6 of http://www.apnic.net/policy/historical-resource-policies
>
> This section describes the policies and procedures for voluntary
> transfer of historical resource registrations to current APNIC account
> holders. Resources transferred under this policy will become subject
> to the current APNIC policy framework.
>
Correct, our proposal seek to supplement it.