Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
On 16/07/2009, at 2:49 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
On 16/07/2009, at 2:43 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
Thanks for posting this data - I wonder if the result would have
been
different if Option C had talked about 12 months instead of 24
months.
Interesting point. Didn't take a poll on that, but I don't see any
reasons for our community objecting to the change from 24 months to
12
months.
Thanks for the comment!
So if I may, A reword of option C based on the comments from Andy and
Izumi:
C ver 1.1 ;)
"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 12 months or until the
"final / 8" assignment measures are implemented. In exceptional
circumstances a member can submit a comprehensive plan justifying
an allocation and a notice of application will be posted for at least
7 days on the APNIC website."
"a notice of application will be posted for at least 7 days on the
APNIC website"
My, possibly incorrect, interpretation of this condition is that this
appears to be a significant departure from current practices where
applications and the details of applications are treated in strict
confidence by APNIC staff.
Section 3.1 para g of the APNIC membership agreement commits APNIC to:
"not disclose to any person (except to the General Secretariat,
Internet Administration Authorities, staff and contractors performing
necessary work for APNIC who sign a non-disclosure agreement, or as
legally required to do so) any confidential information which the
Member provides to the Company"
It would appear to me that this requirement to publish the application
suggest that it would require a new membership agreement, on the
assumption that applications are treated as confidential information
under the terms of the current membership agreement.
So is this publication of an application really what was intended
here? And are folk comfortable with this? Or am I missing something
here and is something different than disclosure of an application is
intended in the above text?
I am also unsure what is intended by such a publication of an
application. Is the secretariat supposed to take note of any comment
received from posting such a notice? Or not? Or... ? I suppose I am
trying to understand what purpose is to be served by such a notice of
publication - some clarification here would be appreciated.
thanks,
Geoff
disclaimer - This is still just me, still trying to figure out what
appears to be some reasonable consensus to allow the policy proposal
to be redrafted.