Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal

  • To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:42:03 +0900
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <4A5EA683.5070702 at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <F72ACDCB-D54B-434C-B133-95A94C44C6A9@apnic.net> <AA9D0B9A-A156-4DE8-BDD7-F31690B88175@apnic.net> <4A5EA683.5070702@nic.ad.jp>
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
    • 
      Let me follow up a little more.
      
      >From the discussions at the meeting, the reason for support for having
      "no restrictions" is that speculation and other concerns are likely to
      be prevented by hostmaster practice. Hosmaster should be able to tell if
      someone comes back in a short span and cannnot justify its utilization.
      
      We've also had discussions on checking efficient utilization at the time
      of the transfer.
      
      During the discussions, there were more opionions supporting no check of
      utilization. Then again, opinions were split when we asked for show of
      hands, so we don't have a clear conclusion about this.
      
      If there is to be a check on utilization, most people in JP feel it
      should be done before APNIC pool runs out, but not after the run out.
      
      Feedbacks are welcome and I'd be happy to pass on any questions about
      our discussions.
      
      Izumi
      on behalf of JP community
      
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Opinions supporting no check on efficient utilization
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
       + Adding too much restrictions will disturb the original spirit of the
         tranfer proposal. no need to have restrictions once APNIC's address
         pool is exhausted
      
       + Registry shouldn't interfer in transfer criteria between the source
         and the recipient
          ie., checking utilization would mean registry interfering in tranfer
               decision
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Should APNIC check utilization at the time of transfer?
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
       yes: 25
       no : 30
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Should policy for utilization check be seperate before/after APNIC pool
      runs out?
      (check utilization before but not after APNIC pool runs out)
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
       yes: 25
       no :  4
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      Izumi Okutani wrote:
      > Hi all,
      > 
      > 
      >> A: 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 24 months.
      >>
      >> or
      >>
      >> B: Any address that will be transfered must be held by the transfering
      >>     party for at least 12 months, regardless of how the address was
      >>     obtained.
      > 
      >   C: Terry's suggestion
      >> 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 24 months or until the "final /
      >> 8" assignment measures are implemented. In exceptional circumstances a
      >> member can submit a comprehensive plan justifying an allocation. A
      >> substantial processing fee may be charged and a notice of
      >> application will
      >> be posted for at least 7 days on the APNIC website.
      > 
      > We've had some discussions about this within Japan too (in our own OPM),
      > and there was most support for having "no restrictions" to the tranfer.
      > 
      > The basic feelings of ISPs in JP is that having no restrictions is most
      > preferable but option "B" or "C" is also acceptable (no strong
      > preference over which one) if some form of restriction is considered
      > necessary in the APNIC forum.
      > 
      > The bottom line is that if there is to be a restriction, we'd like to
      > ensure the source of the transfer will not be totally banned from
      > requesting for subsequent allocations from APNIC.
      > 
      > FYI, we've taken the vote counts to see preference of the community and
      > the results were:
      > 
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >   Should Add some form of restrictions
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >    yes : 13
      >    no  : 32
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >   If there is to be a restriction, which option should be adopted?
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >    option A (original prop-050)    :  0
      >    option B (seiichi's suggestion) : 20
      >    option C (terry's suggestion)   : 18
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > 
      > 
      > Izumi
      > on behalf of JP community
      > 
      > Geoff Huston wrote:
      >> With this note I'd like to request a little more help from the policy
      >> sig folk in resolving a couple of items that will allow Philip and
      >> myself to revise the address transfer policy proposal in a way that
      >> will assist the community to reach a workable consensus on the topic.
      >>
      >> What we have now is a set of highlights that read:
      >>
      >> - The transfer proposal applies to all address holdings as held by
      >>    current account holders of APNIC (the existing historical address
      >>    transfer policy covers other potentially relevant scenarios of
      >>    transfers)
      >>
      >> - NIRs have the choice as to when to adopt this policy for their
      >>    members (i.e. members of NIRs)
      >>
      >> - Prior to the exhaustion of APNIC's IPv4 space (i.e. prior to the use
      >>    of the "final /8" allocation measures) recipients of transfers will
      >>    be required to justify their need for address space. After this time
      >>    there is no requirement for any form of evaluation of requirements
      >>    for eligibility.
      >>
      >>
      >> We have two suggested alternatives for the final highlight:
      >>
      >> A: 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 24 months.
      >>
      >> or
      >>
      >> B: Any address that will be transfered must be held by the transfering
      >>     party for at least 12 months, regardless of how the address was
      >>     obtained.
      >>
      >>
      >> It would be really useful to hear from some folk about whether it  
      >> makes more
      >> sense in our context to impose a constraint on future allocations  
      >> (option A)
      >> or a constraint on frequency on transfers for any given address  
      >> (option B).
      >>
      >> Which option would you prefer to see in the policy proposal?
      >>
      >>
      >> thanks,
      >>
      >>    Geoff
      >>
      >>    Disclaimer: As usual, all my own work, etc, etc.
      >> *              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
      > 
      > *              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