If you are one of those who want to open full doors for no rules and
allowing leasing with no much consideration than it may make sense to
you to remove size restriction, but it doesn't make sense according to
the problem statement and mainly how this benefit the affected
community. This propose should be aimed for smaller organizations to
start with and for facilitate IPv6 deployment, otherwise it has not
merit, it would be just a a disguised way to allow leasing calling a
different naming and with no much consideration and dismissing what such
bad change means for the community.
Overall proposals text should be in line with their main objectives,
even despite what authors may have said later to please one or another
in order to reach consensus.
Fernando
On 05/08/2024 21:34, Christopher Hawker wrote:
Hello Fernando,
In Jordi's post to the list
(https://orbit.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/M74ATB4VMTO6SZTIXO5P3WEV5ZH2X647/
<../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 [email protected]
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
