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

2018-01-31 Thread Tsurumaki, Satoru 
Dear Alex

Thank you for your clarification !
I understand this policy and personally support it.


Satoru


2018-01-31 19:09 GMT+09:00 yang...@126.com :
> Dear Satoru
>
>Thank you for your understanding , and for the second problem :  Not
> only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right !!!
>
>My suggestion is :
>
>   M is ineluctable , and NO one know when it will happen from what
> entities , and even one company may have more than one M
>
>   So my proposal is for the IPv4 Blocks allocated before prop-116 , and
> for the M situation, should have the equal right with others (Not only
> one-time)
>
>   Other IPv4 blocks  allocated after prop-116 or other situation should
> strictly obey the policy .  Sorry maybe there were some mistakes for my
> explaination last time.
>
>
> 
> Alex Yang
>
>
> From: Satoru Tsurumaki
> Date: 2018-01-31 09:49
> To: yang...@126.com; sig-policy
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10
> 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

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

2018-01-31 Thread Mike Burns 
“This is, IMHO, the kind of speculation in 103/8 blocks that the policy 
(original 2 year limit) was intended to target.”

 

Not to my thinking. The thing that was targeted by policy was the tapping of 
the free pool in order to then turn around and sell.  The problem foreseen was 
a recurrence of the RIPE problem, where new LIRs are spun up just to avail 
themselves of the pool reserved for new applicants.

 

In the case I mentioned, the buyer, who did not tap the pool but instead paid 
money, is now prevented from resale.

 

If the target of the policy is the protection of the remaining pool reserved 
for new entrants, preventing *prior* recipients from selling is missing that 
target, because the free pool is not affected.

 

That is why I could support a waiting period moving forward, as that will 
protect the pool as intended. I would concur with your 24 month period as being 
more reasonable.

 

Regards,

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:39 PM
To: Mike Burns 
Cc: Skeeve Stevens ; Bertrand 
Cherrier ; sig-pol...@apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

 

We can agree to disagree.

 

This is, IMHO, the kind of speculation in 103/8 blocks that the policy 
(original 2 year limit) was intended to target.

 

The expansion of this to a 5 year limit, while excessive IMHO, seems to likely 
be community reaction to just this sort of behavior, so I have no problem with 
the result.

 

Owen

 

On Jan 31, 2018, at 09:06 , Mike Burns  > wrote:

 

We brokered a sale of a 103 block when it was within policy to do so.

 

Now that buyer, who paid money for the block with the understanding that he 
could resell it, has had the situation changed to his detriment by the new 
restrictive policy.

 

I support the grandfathering-in of 103 blocks allocated prior to the recent 5 
year policy, allowing them to be resold but preventing those who receive 103 
blocks after the 5 year policy was implemented from reselling before 5 years.  
(Although  5 years is too long, IMO)

 

I support this policy.

 

 

 

From:   
sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [ 
 
mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:40 AM
To: Bertrand Cherrier <  
b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>
Cc:   sig-pol...@apnic.net SIG List < 
 sig-pol...@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

 

I very much support this policy. A policy should not be retrospectively applied 
otherwise anything any of us may do or plan to do can be considered guaranteed, 
and I would see a case for requesting APNIC to return funds for any services 
provided that have been negated by policy changes.

 

I also very much object to the 5 year period that snuck in at the last APNIC 
meeting. I was happy with 2 years, but 5 years is unreasonable.

 

I was going to make a submission to change this back to 2 years, but 
unfortunately, work got in the way and I did not get the submission in on time. 
Next meeting maybe.





...Skeeve

 

Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte 
Ltd.

Email:   ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia 
; Web:   eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook:   eintellegonetworks ; 
Twitter:   eintellego

LinkedIn:   /in/skeeve ; Expert360:  
 Profile ; Keybase:  
 https://keybase.io/skeeve

 

Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

 

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Cherrier < 
 b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> wrote:

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

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

2018-01-31 Thread Owen DeLong 

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 10:09 , Skeeve Stevens 
>  wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
> Of course, there is the possibility (probability) of this, but that would be 
> stupid as the costs of maintaining companies would exceed CGN or other 
> methods to alleviate the need.

Maintaining? Once you do the merge, there’s no need to maintain.

Standing up a shell company is pretty cheap and easy in most places. I’m sure 
there’s at least one country somewhere in the APNIC region where this is true. 
If there’s no stricture on M acquisitions of 103/8 space, not even a minimal 
time limit, then I would argue it’s pretty hard to distinguish this activity 
from “real M” on a policy basis. After all, a real company (albeit a shell 
company, this is very hard to detect) is applying for and receiving space and 
then “really” being “acquired” by the “independent” organization that spun it 
up in the first place. On paper it’s 100% legitimate normal business practice 
and it’s virtually impossible to distinguish this from (e.g. 3Com spinning off 
Palm and then later acquiring it, then spinning it off where it was eventually 
acquired by HP).

I agree that 5 years is way too long and exceeds the useful delay here, but I 
think that a 24 month waiting period after acquiring is not at all unreasonable.

Owen

> The issue here is that APNIC needs to be satisfied it is a real M, which 
> should not be that hard to do.
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte 
> Ltd.
> Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia  
> ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia 
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <>
> Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ; 
> Twitter: eintellego 
> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile 
>  ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve 
> 
> 
> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
> 
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the 
> distributed portion of 103/8.
> 
> I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8 
> resources have been subject
> to one or more M transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested in 
> the number instances where
> the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).
> 
> I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:
> 
>   1.  Stand up shell entity
>   2.  Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block.
>   3.  Merge shell entity into parent entity and M transfer block 
> into parent’s holdings.
>   4.  Lather, rinse, repeat.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens 
>> > > wrote:
>> 
>> This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been 
>> enshrined in policy.
>> 
>> 
>> ...Skeeve
>> 
>> Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) 
>> Pte Ltd.
>> Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia 
>>  ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia 
>> 
>> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <>
>> Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ; 
>> Twitter: eintellego 
>> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile 
>>  ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve 
>> 
>> 
>> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
>> 
>> 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 >
>> 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,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>

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

2018-01-31 Thread Skeeve Stevens 
Owen,

Of course, there is the possibility (probability) of this, but that would
be stupid as the costs of maintaining companies would exceed CGN or other
methods to alleviate the need.

The issue here is that APNIC needs to be satisfied it is a real M, which
should not be that hard to do.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia)
Pte Ltd.
Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
Twitter: eintellego 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile
 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the
> distributed portion of 103/8.
>
> I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued
> 103/8 resources have been subject
> to one or more M transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested
> in the number instances where
> the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).
>
> I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:
>
> 1. Stand up shell entity
> 2. Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block.
> 3. Merge shell entity into parent entity and M transfer block into
> parent’s holdings.
> 4. Lather, rinse, repeat.
>
> Owen
>
> On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens  eintellegonetworks.asia> wrote:
>
> This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been
> enshrined in policy.
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks
> (Cambodia) Pte Ltd.
> Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve
> Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
> Twitter: eintellego 
> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile
>  ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
>
> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
>
> 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

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

2018-01-31 Thread Mike Burns 
We brokered a sale of a 103 block when it was within policy to do so.

 

Now that buyer, who paid money for the block with the understanding that he 
could resell it, has had the situation changed to his detriment by the new 
restrictive policy.

 

I support the grandfathering-in of 103 blocks allocated prior to the recent 5 
year policy, allowing them to be resold but preventing those who receive 103 
blocks after the 5 year policy was implemented from reselling before 5 years.  
(Although  5 years is too long, IMO)

 

I support this policy.

 

 

 

From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:40 AM
To: Bertrand Cherrier 
Cc: sig-pol...@apnic.net SIG List 
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

 

I very much support this policy. A policy should not be retrospectively applied 
otherwise anything any of us may do or plan to do can be considered guaranteed, 
and I would see a case for requesting APNIC to return funds for any services 
provided that have been negated by policy changes.

 

I also very much object to the 5 year period that snuck in at the last APNIC 
meeting. I was happy with 2 years, but 5 years is unreasonable.

 

I was going to make a submission to change this back to 2 years, but 
unfortunately, work got in the way and I did not get the submission in on time. 
Next meeting maybe.





...Skeeve

 

Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte 
Ltd.

Email:   ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia 
; Web:   eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook: eintellegonetworks   ; 
Twitter: eintellego  

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve   ; Expert360: Profile 
  ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve

 

Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

 

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Cherrier  > wrote:

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 resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The 
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those 
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to 
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered, 
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC 
Whois data.
 
 
2. Objective of policy change
---
 
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
 
 
3. Situation in other regions
---
 
No such situation in other regions.
 
 
4. Proposed policy solution
---
 
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment” 
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14 
Sep 2017.
 
 
5. Advantages / Disadvantages

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

2018-01-31 Thread Owen DeLong 
I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the 
distributed portion of 103/8.

I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8 
resources have been subject
to one or more M transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested in 
the number instances where
the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).

I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:

1.  Stand up shell entity
2.  Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block.
3.  Merge shell entity into parent entity and M transfer block 
into parent’s holdings.
4.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

Owen

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens 
>  wrote:
> 
> This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been 
> enshrined in policy.
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte 
> Ltd.
> Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia  
> ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia 
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <>
> Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ; 
> Twitter: eintellego 
> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile 
>  ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve 
> 
> 
> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
> 
> 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 >
> 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-boun...@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    http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane 
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr 
> > 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-boun...@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

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

2018-01-31 Thread Skeeve Stevens 
I have multiple clients who are going through M of smaller ISPs and now
have resources they need to use but can't combine them under their
membership and have to maintain a legal company just to hold the resources.

This could cost a couple of thousand dollars per year in Australia for ASIC
fees, Annual Tax Returns and Accountant Fees.

I am considering advising clients to let the companies die, keep records of
an internal transfer of assets (resources), and point lawyers at APNIC if
they do not update the registry records.

In an M there is no need to justify the use of resources as they are
already using them and will continue to do so under the original (whatever
that is) justification. It is not the right of APNIC to interfere with a
business lawfully carrying on its operations and I think the courts will
agree. APNIC is a registry operator and record keeper. They are already
drifting from their chartered purpose too much in my opinion and should be
put back in their place.



...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia)
Pte Ltd.
Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
Twitter: eintellego 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile
 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:08 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

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

2018-01-31 Thread Skeeve Stevens 
This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been
enshrined in policy.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia)
Pte Ltd.
Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
Twitter: eintellego 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile
 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

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

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

2018-01-31 Thread Skeeve Stevens 
I agree, but there needs to be some protection for APNIC on the resources
left.

But I think the APNIC EC can probably decide on the best way to evaluate
this themselves.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia)
Pte Ltd.
Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
Twitter: eintellego 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile
 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Rajesh Panwala 
wrote:

> Dear Team,
>
> My submission is " All M cases should be excluded from denying the
> transfer."
>
> As M is routine business activity, there is no point barring transfer.
>
> regards,
>
> Rajesh Panwala
> For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
> +91-9227886001
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Sanjeev Gupta  wrote:
>
>> Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear
>> definition of "genuine".  It is unfair to them to expect that they
>> administer a rule which is not well defined.
>>
>> Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sanjeev Gupta
>> +65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala <
>> raj...@smartlinkindia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I partially support the policy. For genuine M cases , there should not
>>> be any restriction on transfer of resources. M activities are part and
>>> parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Rajesh Panwala
>>> For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
>>> +91-9227886001 <+91%2092278%2086001>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier <
>>> b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> wrote:
>>>
 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 resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
 community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
 resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
 transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
 there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
 Whois data.


 2. Objective of policy change
 ---

 To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.


 3. Situation in other regions
 ---

 No such situation in other regions.


 4. Proposed policy solution
 ---

 “Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
 which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
 should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since

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

2018-01-31 Thread Skeeve Stevens 
So define it better. This could be undertaken by the EC outside the scope
of policy IMHO.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia)
Pte Ltd.
Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
Twitter: eintellego 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile
 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Sanjeev Gupta  wrote:

> Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear
> definition of "genuine".  It is unfair to them to expect that they
> administer a rule which is not well defined.
>
> Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
>
>
> --
> Sanjeev Gupta
> +65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala  > wrote:
>
>> I partially support the policy. For genuine M cases , there should not
>> be any restriction on transfer of resources. M activities are part and
>> parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Rajesh Panwala
>> For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
>> +91-9227886001 <+91%2092278%2086001>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier <
>> b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
>>> community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
>>> resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
>>> transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
>>> there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
>>> Whois data.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Objective of policy change
>>> ---
>>>
>>> To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. Situation in other regions
>>> ---
>>>
>>> No such situation in other regions.
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>>> ---
>>>
>>> “Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
>>> which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
>>> should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
>>> Sep 2017.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Advantages:
>>>
>>> - Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
>>>   Whois data correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> Disadvantages:
>>>
>>> None.
>>>
>>>
>>> 6. Impact on resource holders
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
>>> were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 7. References
>>>

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

2018-01-31 Thread Skeeve Stevens 
Agreed.  I do agree that there needs to be some protections to avoid abuse
of the last /8 resources, but, there seems to be a policy failure elsewhere
in APNIC in relation to the evaluation of M which is allowing abusive
transactions to occur.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia)
Pte Ltd.
Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
Twitter: eintellego 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile
 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala 
wrote:

> I partially support the policy. For genuine M cases , there should not
> be any restriction on transfer of resources. M activities are part and
> parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place.
>
> regards,
>
> Rajesh Panwala
> For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
> +91-9227886001
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier <
> b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> wrote:
>
>> 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 resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
>> community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
>> resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
>> transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
>> there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
>> Whois data.
>>
>>
>> 2. Objective of policy change
>> ---
>>
>> To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
>>
>>
>> 3. Situation in other regions
>> ---
>>
>> No such situation in other regions.
>>
>>
>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>> ---
>>
>> “Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
>> which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
>> should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
>> Sep 2017.
>>
>>
>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
>> ---
>>
>> Advantages:
>>
>> - Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
>>   Whois data correct.
>>
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>>
>> None.
>>
>>
>> 6. Impact on resource holders
>> ---
>>
>> Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
>> were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>>
>>
>>
>> 7. References
>> ---
>>
>>
>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>  *
>> ___
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
>

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

2018-01-31 Thread Skeeve Stevens 
I very much support this policy. A policy should not be retrospectively
applied otherwise anything any of us may do or plan to do can be considered
guaranteed, and I would see a case for requesting APNIC to return funds for
any services provided that have been negated by policy changes.

I also very much object to the 5 year period that snuck in at the last
APNIC meeting. I was happy with 2 years, but 5 years is unreasonable.

I was going to make a submission to change this back to 2 years, but
unfortunately, work got in the way and I did not get the submission in on
time. Next meeting maybe.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia)
Pte Ltd.
Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
Twitter: eintellego 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile
 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Cherrier  wrote:

> 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 resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
> community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
> resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
> transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
> there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
> Whois data.
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> ---
>
> To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> ---
>
> No such situation in other regions.
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
>
> “Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
> which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
> should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
> Sep 2017.
>
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> ---
>
> Advantages:
>
> - Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
>   Whois data correct.
>
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> None.
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
> ---
>
> Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
> were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>
>
>
> 7. References
> ---
>
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

[sig-policy] Monthly List Reminder

2018-01-31 Thread noreply 
Dear Subscriber,

This is the monthly reminder of subscription information for the
sig-policy list, hosted at APNIC.

For subscription information including how to un-subscribe go to
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Thank you for participating in this discussion.

Kind Regards,

List administrator
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

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

2018-01-31 Thread yang...@126.com 
Dear Satoru

   Thank you for your understanding , and for the second problem :  Not 
only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right !!!

   My suggestion is : 

  M is ineluctable , and NO one know when it will happen from what 
entities , and even one company may have more than one M

  So my proposal is for the IPv4 Blocks allocated before prop-116 , and for 
the M situation, should have the equal right with others (Not only one-time)

  Other IPv4 blocks  allocated after prop-116 or other situation should 
strictly obey the policy .  Sorry maybe there were some mistakes for my 
explaination last time. 




Alex Yang
 
From: Satoru Tsurumaki
Date: 2018-01-31 09:49
To: yang...@126.com; sig-policy
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10
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
>
>