Re: [sig-policy] Timeline for implementing the transfer proposal

  • To: pfs at cisco dot com, sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Timeline for implementing the transfer proposal
  • From: MAEMURA Akinori <maem at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:14:39 +0900
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <499FB586.2080101 at cisco dot com>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <> <> <> <> <>
    • proposal.
      Izumi has been sharing opinions of JP Community here on the 
      sig-policy mailing list - it's JPNIC's commitment to JP 
      Community to cascade it to AP Community.  On the other hand, 
      JPNIC is an NIR who needs to provide IP address management 
      as a service, and might have a different idea from those of 
      ISPs, and this is the case here now.
      Sorry it going long.
      We agree that some measure must be taken to prevent confusion 
      in database which inevitably disrupts uniqueness of IP address, 
      and see the transfer mechanism will help address this problem 
      to a certain extent.
      Then again, if we implement this proposed policy at this stage 
      when the problem is not substantial, it may create more problems 
      than the solutions it intends to provide.
      One things is that it may lead to encouraging the transfer rather 
      than documenting what's actually happening.
      Another issue that concerns us is there isn't any mechanism to 
      protect ISPs in ensuring fair and trustable transfers to take
      We do recognize and understand the proposer's claim that 
      issues regarding such a mechanism on transfer markets are 
      outside the scope of this proposal and the policy forum, but 
      we think this still remains as an issue regardless of where 
      it should be considered.
      We'd therefore like to make following suggestions to help us move
      forward in addresssing the remaining issues.
       * If APNIC doesn't have the expertise, it should at least make
         necessary liasison with experts, or
       * keep the community well informed that they should work the 
         expertise within their economies, etc.
       * If APNIC considers none of these actions are necessary, 
         provide an analysis of how transfers can work without taking 
         such measures
      Experts within the economies are not likely to take necessary 
      measures unless this forum/members of this forum keep them 
      It is not yet very clear if an Internet Registry can provide
      the transfer mechanism without any harm on its operation.  
      A trade might not be always safe and faithful, but sometimes
      be with a blunder or of malice, resulting in a significnat 
      loss in either party.  In such a case, an Internet Registry
      might be sued or claimed for indeminification.  Such a 
      situation should be avoided by a reinforced disclaimer, 
      robust and minute process of transfer registration, et cetra.
      I am afraid to say, although this proposal has had a good degree 
      of support within AP and JP Communities, in the reasons such 
      as above JPNIC cannot support this proposal until it is clear 
      that there is a concrete plan that remaining issues will be 
      addressed in an appropriate manner.   JPNIC is quite happy to 
      contribute in such a preparation/consideration/examination in
      MAEMURA Akinori               General Manager, IP Department
      maem at nic dot ad dot jp      JPNIC - Japan Network Information Center
      In message <499FB586.2080101 at cisco dot com>
         "Re: [sig-policy] Timeline for implementing the transfer proposal"
         "Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>" wrote:
      | Randy Bush said the following on 19/2/09 13:04:
      | >> Izumi-san said:
      | >> what I'd like to understand is whether prop-067 intends to have timeline
      | >> independent from exhaustion of APNIC's address pool.
      | > 
      | > i do not believe the authors considered the question, or at least not
      | > deeply.
      | As the other (asleep) author, I concur.
      | > i am not sure i have a strong opinion.  but i am not sure what
      | > delay gains, trading is happening now, and i want the records to be kept
      | > well (cf your desire for knowing the history of a block).
      | Likewise I have no strong opinion on the time-line. Input gladly received.
      | James indicates that implementing this policy will encourage a market.
      | I've seen other claims to this effect. I believe there will be a market
      | anyway, and I think we are dreaming if we pretend that it doesn't exist
      | now. But will it encourage it? Good question.
      | >From the proposal intro, the aim is to document transfers:
      | ******
      | This policy proposal seeks to permit APNIC to document transfers of
      | IPv4 address space between organisations.
      | ******
      | Documentation of who holds a resource is important. No responsible ISP
      | announces any old thing that comes along. They need to be able to check.
      | If there is no (or contradictory documentation) as to holds the
      | resource, then who is the ISP to trust?
      | philip
      | --
      | *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      | _______________________________________________
      | sig-policy mailing list
      | sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net