Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal

  • To: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
  • From: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:39:03 +1000
  • Cc: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <05C56983-902F-49F4-BC84-6C997FA64407 at apnic dot net>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
  • Sender: Terry Manderson <>
      Hi Geoff,
      On 16/07/2009, at 8:27 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
      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"
      Does this include the act of retuning for address space within the constructs of this policy proposal?
      It would appear to me that this requirement to publish the application
      ahh.. I see how you got there... The wording is "notice of application", so I certainly don't expect APNIC or APNIC staff to breech the confidentiality clauses housed in the membership agreement. My intention was not for APNIC to post the application publicly.
      An example notice of application can be as simple as:
      "On DD/MM/YYYY The member with the unique anonymous ID of A91A7381 (from APNIC delegated stats files) has applied for additional resources with consideration in regard to this policy (prop ###)."
      Does this breech the membership confidentiality clause?
      Those who are interested can then do legwork to observe the past records of the ID A91A7381.. heck APNIC might even be kind enough to href A91A7381 to `grep A91A7381 delegated-apnic-extended-latest` ;)
      (note: I picked A91A7381 at random)
      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
      No that isn't what was intended.
      And are folk comfortable with this?
      .. Your interpretation, I should hope not! ;-P
      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
      I personally am not looking for a "email the secretariat to object" link. I would trust that the secretariat has done due process and this really is just a notification for the benefit of the community..
      trying to understand what purpose is to be served by such a notice of
      publication - some clarification here would be appreciated.
      The notice of application is to add a level of transparency to a potentially murky state. While I don't ever expect APNIC to decline a request from a member in such a situation. I think it serves the community better to have some level of visibility that some organisations are indeed coming back after disposal. The knowledge of those events (through an RSS feed) will allow us to ask questions.. "did we get this policy right?", "Is there a corner case here that we, as a community missed?", "should the policy be amended?".. and many other questions that come with such post implementation knowledge. I personally don't need to know which organisations are applying, nor the specifics of their application. Given that APNIC already publish unique IDs liked to resources in the stats files, I don't see my suggestion as a breech, or onerous on the secretariat. I am interested, however, in the frequency and timing instances where organisations do trigger this action.