I remain opposed to this proposal for the following reasons:
- It doesn't have a limit on the size of the transfer anymore. Initially
the idea was to support smaller organizations to start with something
and/or to promote IPv6 deployments (mentioned in the Problem Statement)
in order to allow organizations to finance themselves, do the right
thing and transfer a block permanently (also mentioned in the Problem
Statement). There is no sense em calling a proposal "temporary"
transfers if it is not intended to be temporary. Then it would only be a
disguised way to allow IP leasing which is not currently allowed for
APINIC resources with a different and more 'soft' naming.
- There are concerns raised by APNIC Secretariat regarding log transfer
and how that should be presented for better clarity which make sense and
should be adjusted accordingly.
The point about APNIC not being part of the contract between the parties
I don't see as a problem since that is more a mechanism to more easily
allow the resources holder to revoke the resources if necessary and
don't incur in legal demand, so it is more a protection for the them and
a tool to allow to be used if the temporary destination doesn't comply
with what is mandated by the current policies. If in there worst case
scenario there is a legal dispute and APNIC is called by courts to give
their opinion, even not being part, this type of clause can help to
resolve the controversy.
Fernando
On 05/08/2024 09:58, Christopher Hawker wrote:
Hello Jordi,
I've reviewed version 3, and there is one thing I've noticed is that
point 4 of the questions in the Secretariat Impact Assessment does not
appear to have been addressed.
In your proposed text under "11.1.4 Additional conditions for
temporary transfers", it states that transfers "are subjected to
additional conditions that must be warranted by the transfer contract
among the parties" and then lists a number of conditions that must be
included as part of a transfer contract between the source and
destination members followed by:
The source is responsible for the oversight of those conditions.
APNIC will be able to establish operational practices to ensure
compliance.
In case of lack of due diligence by a source, even with different
temporary transfers or recipients, APNIC will initiate a warning,
which, if ignored will trigger the immediate revocation of the
resources involved.
As the Secretariat has mentioned, "APNIC cannot enforce the terms of a
contract it is not a party to" and this would apply to terms
applicable to either the source or destination member. If there is a
lack of due diligence by the source member and/or a failure by them to
enforce terms of the contract, APNIC cannot revoke the resources for
this reason. For APNIC to become a party of a contract to enforce its
terms, it would require a review of the contract by its legal team and
approval to be sought prior to its execution. This potentially would
place a sizeable demand on APNIC's legal team to review every transfer
contract.
In it's current form, I do not support the proposal as written. While
temporary transfers for the community can be beneficial, we should not
use policy to set the terms of contracts between two members. As
11.1.4 would be unenforceable by APNIC without substantial cost and
resources (that would potentially detract from other areas of the
organisation), I would remove this portion and instead leave it up to
the parties of the contract to determine how the agreement should look
outside of policy.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy -https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
