> - Do you support or oppose the proposal? Mild support. > - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? No.
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? No. > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? An explicit requirement that the receiving party should be a current APNIC member Overall, I am not clear on how useful or often this will be, but I see no disadvantages. This will help improve the Whois database, and document what is currently been done off-books. It improves the paperwork. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:16 PM, chku <c...@twnic.net.tw> wrote: > 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 > d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net > > 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 > sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
