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: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:27:57 +1000
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <ED960528-E62C-4F98-A081-5D4E2DAEA7D6 at terrym dot net>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <F72ACDCB-D54B-434C-B133-95A94C44C6A9@apnic.net> <AA9D0B9A-A156-4DE8-BDD7-F31690B88175@apnic.net> <4A5EA683.email@example.com> <4A5EAF49.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4A5EB00C.email@example.com> <ED960528-E62C-4F98-A081-5D4E2DAEA7D6@terrym.net>
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 beendifferent 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 anyreasons for our community objecting to the change from 24 months to 12months. 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, Geoffdisclaimer - 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.