Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal

  • To: "Geoff Huston" <gih at apnic dot net>, "Policy SIG" <sig-policy at apnic dot net>, <pfs at cisco dot com>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
  • From: "Terence Zhang YH" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:59:43 +0800
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • 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> <445302678.22812@cnnic.cn>
    • Geoff/Philips, 
      
      We are glad to see the discussion of transfer policy proposal is heading to a good direction.
      
      We had some discussions about this in our commnity too,  and our current views are summarized as following: 
      
      We agree in general with what reached consensus in the past meeting, 
      as long as safeguard measures are in place. 
      
      We favor the proposed supplement of justification requirement:
      
      - 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 favor the basic idea of newly discussed re-application limit measure:
      
      12 or 24 months, or until the "final /8 assignment" policies are in force,
      with exceptional handling, required to provide comprehensive plan and notice to the public...
      
      As for 12 or 24 months, we prefer 24 months as what is proposed originally,
      and with exceptional handling in place, and before 'final /8', we 
      tend to think 24 months is safer and more reasonable. 
      
      Terence Zhang 
      CNNIC
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Geoff Huston" <gih at apnic dot net>
      To: "Policy SIG" <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
      Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:24 PM
      Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
      
      
      > 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