| Hi Jordi My comments are inline
This is not simply clarifying the text. The existing text is explicit. This relaxes the
policy. Your proposal text mentions “As a consequence, if there is a request with a documented purpose, and in the future the assigned space is used for some other purposes, it will violate the policy”. This is not an error. I’m quite certain the very restrictive wording is deliberate. The community expected Members to use the resources for *exactly* the demonstrated need and to return them if that demonstrated need no longer exists. This is evident in the text at 4.1. License Renewal, which says; “Licenses to organizations shall be renewable on the following conditions: - The original basis of the delegation remains valid”. However, I suspect this activity already happens in practice. So I’m supportive of the spirit of this change if the community agrees that delegation of resources for generic ‘own infrastructure’ usage is currently acceptable. I would specifically like to caution the removal of the “may not be sub-assigned”. This is the *definition* for ‘assigned’ space at APNIC. In the impact assessment, the Secretariat says, “assigned address space cannot be sub-assigned to other networks”. Who says? If this is only a technical limitation of MyAPNIC and it is no longer stated explicitly in the policy, then it allows for open interpretation/argument. Is the Secretariat confident the “exclusive use
within infrastructure they operate” phrase means the same thing? Regards, Adam
|