Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10

2018-01-30 Thread Satoru Tsurumaki 
Dear Alex

Thank you for your response.

> In my opinion, any entity got the ipv4 blocks in 103/8 before 14 Sep 2017
should have the same right to use or transfer its blocks like others.

I also think that their rights should be respected.
But,


>  Not only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right , thank you very
much !!!

The recipient entities who are transferred 103/8 after 14 Sep 2017 know
prop-116.
I believe they have no right to transfer a 103/8 because they understand 5
years limitation and  transferred it.
So, I think the number of transfer of 103/8 before 14 Sep 2017 should be
limited to one.

Would you please give us your opinion ?



BTW,
About 60%+ 103/8 has already allocated.
Therefore, the consensus of prop-123 means a substantial abolition of
prop-116.
We need re-think why prop-116 was consensus.

Thanks,

Satoru Tsurumaki



2018-01-29 20:09 GMT+09:00 yang...@126.com :

> Dear Satoru
>
> Thank you for your question, and i mean it is really a good
> question!
>
> In my opinion, any entity got the ipv4 blocks in 103/8 before 14
> Sep 2017 should have the same right to use or transfer its blocks like
> others.
>
> Not only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right , thank you
> very much !!!
>
> --
> Alex Yang
>
>
> *From:* sig-policy-request 
> *Date:* 2018-01-29 18:30
> *To:* sig-policy 
> *Subject:* sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10
> Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sig-policy-ow...@lists.apnic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re:  prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>   (Satoru Tsurumaki)
>2. Re:  prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy (Ajai Kumar)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:03:38 +0900
> From: Satoru Tsurumaki 
> To: SIG policy 
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Proposer
>
> I would like to clarify.
>
> My understanding is:
> Prop-116 will be subject to the 103/8 IPv4 address which allocated before
> 14 Sep 2017 and be transferred after this proposal will consensus.
> It's mean that these address will be allowed to transfer "ONE-TIME".
>
> Is it correct ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Satoru Tsurumaki
> JPOPF Steering Team (former JPNIC Policy Working Group)
>
>
>
>
> 2018-01-26 12:27 GMT+09:00 Bertrand Cherrier :
>
> > Dear SIG members,
> >
> > The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has
> > been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
> >
> > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in
> > Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
> >
> > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> > before the meeting.
> >
> > The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> > important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> > express your views on the proposal:
> >
> >  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> >  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
> >tell the community about your situation.
> >  - 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?
> >
> > Information about this proposal is available at:
> >
> >http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> >
> > https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
> >
> > ---
> >
> > prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Proposer:Alex Yang
> >  yang...@126.com
> >
> >
> > 1. Problem statement
> > ---
> >
> > Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
> > the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
> > 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
> > block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
> >
> > However, some of the 103/8 ranges were

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

2018-01-30 Thread Rajesh Panwala 
Dear Team,

As statistics suggest, M cases are hardly 2 to 3% of the total
delegations. M are the routine business activities, and no one can
predict when will it happen .
I support the policy.

Rajesh Panwala
For Smartlink solutions Pvt. Ltd.
+91-9227886001

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:38 PM, andrew khoo 
wrote:

> we will vote to support this policy.
>
> as a practical example, the organisation i work for will be affected by
> this policy.
>
> the organisation (a mobile MVNO) acquired a business in 2016 with a /22
> from the 103/8 range with the intention of offering fixed line services.
>
> we are seeking to merge the purchased entity's /22 into our APNIC account.
>
> if we do not do this, the details in APNIC whois for the purchased entity
> will soon be no longer valid.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:
>
>> Hi Aftab,
>>
>>
>>
>> The number of M transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April
>> 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Guangliang
>>
>> ==
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM
>> *To:* Guangliang Pan 
>> *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta ; mailman_SIG-policy <
>> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
>> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Guangliang,
>>
>> How many M were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to
>> 14 Sep 2017.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sanjeev,
>>
>>
>>
>> The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years
>> count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations
>> are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Guangliang
>>
>> =
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis
>> ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta
>> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM
>> *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr 
>> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy 
>> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
>> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively".  People who
>> "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different
>> now.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was
>> sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the
>> rules were changing.
>>
>>
>>
>> APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sanjeev Gupta
>> +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208>   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <
>> michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
>>
>> Not supported
>>
>>
>>
>> The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>>
>>
>>
>> None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer 
>> IPv4 addresses in
>>
>> the final /8 block.
>>
>> ___
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Mike*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis
>> ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier
>> *Sent:* Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m.
>> *To:* sig-pol...@apnic.net
>> *Subject:* [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear SIG members,
>>
>> The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has
>> been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>>
>> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in
>> Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
>>
>> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
>> before the meeting.
>>
>> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
>> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
>> express your views on the proposal:
>>
>>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>>tell the community about your situation.
>>  - 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?
>>
>> Information about this proposal is available at:
>>
>>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>>
>> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
>>
>> ---
>>
>>
>>
>> prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

2018-01-30 Thread andrew khoo 
we will vote to support this policy.

as a practical example, the organisation i work for will be affected by
this policy.

the organisation (a mobile MVNO) acquired a business in 2016 with a /22
from the 103/8 range with the intention of offering fixed line services.

we are seeking to merge the purchased entity's /22 into our APNIC account.

if we do not do this, the details in APNIC whois for the purchased entity
will soon be no longer valid.




On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:

> Hi Aftab,
>
>
>
> The number of M transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April
> 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Guangliang
>
> ==
>
>
>
> *From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM
> *To:* Guangliang Pan 
> *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta ; mailman_SIG-policy <
> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> Hi Guangliang,
>
> How many M were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to
> 14 Sep 2017.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan  wrote:
>
> Hi Sanjeev,
>
>
>
> The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years
> count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations
> are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Guangliang
>
> =
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@
> lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta
> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM
> *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr 
> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy 
> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively".  People who
> "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different
> now.
>
>
>
> I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was
> sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the
> rules were changing.
>
>
>
> APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sanjeev Gupta
> +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208>   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <
> michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
>
> Not supported
>
>
>
> The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
>
> ___
>
> Disadvantages:
>
>
>
> None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer 
> IPv4 addresses in
>
> the final /8 block.
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
>
> *Mike*
>
>
>
> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@
> lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier
> *Sent:* Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m.
> *To:* sig-pol...@apnic.net
> *Subject:* [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>
>
>
> Dear SIG members,
>
> The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has
> been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in
> Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
>
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>tell the community about your situation.
>  - 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?
>
> Information about this proposal is available at:
>
>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>
> Regards
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
>
> ---
>
>
>
> prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Proposer:Alex Yang
>
>  yang...@126.com
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
>
> the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
>
> 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
>
> block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
>
>
>
> However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>
> Those