Hello Fernando,
In Jordi's post to the list (https://orbit.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/M74ATB4VMTO6SZTIXO5P3WEV5ZH2X647/) he identified that one of the main objections was regarding the linkage of temporary transfers to IPv6. As the proposal is no longer linked to IPv6 usage/deployment, it makes no sense to leave this restriction in place. APNIC would not be privy to any commercial terms between the source and destination members of the temporary transfer and as such whilst we may believe it to be "leasing" there is no way for us to know this may be the case.
Regarding your last paragraph on APNIC not being a party to a temporary transfer agreement, the Secretariat is not a tool for members to use when an agreement between two members is not adhered to. Anyone can form an opinion on any topic for any reason or no reason, however, a court of a competent jurisdiction in one economy cannot compel a third-party entity registered in another to do or not do something. An example of this would be if the source member in Malaysia established a temporary transfer to an entity in Thailand and the Thai member refused to implement MANRS Best Practices, the Malaysian courts could not compel APNIC in Australia to reverse the transfer. As a result, writing into policy conditions that members must include in their commercial temporary transfer agreements is redundant as APNIC cannot enforce them.
How do you suggest this policy proposal could be worded to address your concerns?
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
