Good point. Who propose this policy? And rational is? Kuo Wu
Satoru Tsurumaki <[email protected]>於 2017年8月17日 週四，18:48寫道： > I oppose this proposal. > > I would like to know who and why need the "temporary" address. > I could not imagine the use case of this proposal except for the > spammer who get the temporary address which set very short period, > sent huge number of SPAM, return the address and run away. > After that, the source organization might be "laundering" the address > from SPAM DB, then lease this address to another spammers. > > I think we should oppose the proposal which might support the spammer. > > regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki > > > > 2017-08-09 15:16 GMT+09:00 chku <[email protected]>: > > Dear SIG members > > > > The proposal "prop-119: Temporary transfers" was sent to the Policy SIG > > Mailing list in May 2017. > > > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will > > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September > > 2017. > > > > Information about the proposal is available from: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-119 > > > > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: > > > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > > - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? > > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? > > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? > > > > Please find the text of the proposal below. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > prop-119-v001: Temporary transfers > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Proposer: David Hilario > > [email protected] > > > > 1. Problem statement > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary > > transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not > > want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, > > but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA". > > > > > > 2. Objective of policy change > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Create a possibility for temporary transfers that would allow > > organisations to have resources directly registered under them while > > they are the custodians of these resources on the Internet. While also > > guaranteeing that the offering party will under the APNIC policy be able > > to recover the resources once the “lease” time has expired unless > > specifically renewed. > > > > > > 3. Situation in other regions > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > RIPE region has a concept of temporary transfers in their policies. This > > concept is not found in the other RIRs for the moment. > > > > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Adding to section "8.2.1. Conditions on the space to be transferred" the > > following paragraphs: It must be specified if the transfer is a > > permanent or temporary transfer. > > > > A temporary transfer must have an end date, upon the end date the > > resources will be transferred back to the same origin account or its > > successor in the event of merger and acquisitions, unless the transfer > > is specifically prolonged and confirmed by both parties. > > > > If the source account does no longer exist and has no successor, the > > space will then be returned to the origin RIR for the space. Temporary > > transfers cannot be further transferred. > > > > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Advantages: > > Gives a greater flexibility in how LIRs manage and distribute their free > > pool. Enables organisation to receive address space in the way they > > intend. > > > > Disadvantages: > > These transfers would be treated and appear as regular transfers, only > > APNIC the offering and receiving party will be aware of their temporary > > nature. > > > > Organisations receiving such space, if they further assign it, must make > > be ready to renumber/revoke space from their customers and services then > > the lease expires, this is no different than a sub-allocation and > > implies the same limitations. > > > > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > none > > > > > > 7. References > > ------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sig-policy-chair mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > > _______________________________________________ > > sig-policy mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
