Hi Jordi Please stop saying you are “clarifying” policy text when you are actually changing policy. People with English as a second language may misunderstand what is happening. I’m supportive of more specific language in the M&A policy, but this is basically an inter-RIR IPv6 transfer policy. I do not support this policy proposal because I doubt there are sufficient legitimate use cases to justify the significant implementation burden, technical issues, and legal work this would create for the Secretariat(s). Your response to the assessment provided by Sunny doesn’t address the technical implementation issues. When the Secretariat tells you that it is a 6-month timeframe it is because it is complex and expensive to do. Simply saying you understand the implementation issues for APNIC and other RIRs doesn’t change this. It should mean that you have to work hard to demonstrate there is a community need for the change. Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “full” implementation. You can’t have a half implemented Policy. In my opinion, you haven’t provided sufficient justification for this change in policy and I think it’s a bad idea for a host of reasons. My recommendation is that the Secretariat editorially “clarify” Sections 8.4, 11.0, and 13.3 to explicitly say "APNIC will only recognize the intra-RIR transfer of…." Regards, Adam
|