Hi Christopher, My responses below, in-line.
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet > El 28 ago 2024, a las 2:24, Christopher Hawker <[email protected]> > escribió: > > Hello Jordi, > > There is no difference between this proposal and actual assignments that an > ISP with an APNIC allocations can do. > > If there is no difference between this proposal and the current way in which > networks sub-assign resources to their customers, what benefit does this > proposal bring that we do not already have and/or what issue does this > proposal aim to address? > I mean no difference in the sense of the legal implications, it was responding to your point on that. > If ISP A got an APNIC allocation. Then ISP A is doing an assignment to > customers B, and customer B is acting against the policies, APNIC is > perfectly entitled to warn the ISP A and even start a recovery and closure > account, because it is the responsibility of A to ensure that the policies > are followed with all their resources. > > Yes, this is correct, if A remained the registrant. Let's apply this proposal > to this scenario. If A temporarily transferred their resources to B, then B > would become the resource holder of the resources for the period. How can > APNIC recover resources from A if they are not the resource holder? > No, a temporary transfer is transferring the usage, but not the “holder ownership”. The party responsible in front of APNIC is still the original holder (A in this example), that’s why APNIC can’t enforce “B” with the additional conditions. > Regarding ROSE-T, APNIC can just ask for a kind of ?certification? with that > tool, or even work with MANRS in order to facilitate that. There is no need > to grant external access you just need to see the results. > > And this could very easily be falsified with APNIC having no way to > validate/verify its authenticity. > It all depends on how the relation is stablished with MANRS. I’m sure they will be happy to cooperate with the RIRs to provide a public “view” of the status of compliance. > The downsides to this proposal far outweigh the upsides, along with the > resources required to manage temporary transfers potentially being > substantial, thus drawing the resources away from other areas of APNIC. > If I understand your correctly, basically your problem is the section 11.1.4 (additional conditions), or at least this text or part of it: “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." I could just remove it, or we ca find a way to reword it. Any suggestions to remove your objections? > Regards, > Christopher Hawker > > _______________________________________________ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
