[sig-policy] Re: APNIC EC Endorses Proposal from APNIC 56

[Gaurav Kansal]

I seconded the Aftab's opinion.

Regards,
Gaurav

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 05:59, Aftab Siddiqui 
wrote:

> I urge the EC to revisit the decision on the fee waiver. The policy's
> intent was to promote the uptake of PI IPv6 by balancing incentivization
> with the recovery of costs for services provided to resource holders. A
> 12-month fee waiver, unfortunately fails horribly to meet this purpose and
> contradicts APNIC's fundamental goal of accelerating IPv6 adoption. To
> truly drive the shift towards IPv6, we must stop valuing it as if it were
> IPv4 - "a costly asset" - and instead, support its adoption through more
> favorable policies. The policy which the community overwhelmingly supported
> but EC didn't get the essence of it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 10:29, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues
>>
>> The APNIC Executive Council endorsed the proposal, prop-155: IPv6 PI
>> Assignment for Associate Members, at its meeting on 26-28 November 2023.
>>
>> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-155/
>>
>> The EC has also decided to waive the fees on IPv6 PI assignments under
>> this policy for a period of 12 months from the date of delegation. After
>> the 12 month period expires, the resources will become chargeable.
>>
>> Next steps
>> --
>> The Secretariat will begin the implementation process and inform the
>> community as soon as it is completed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sunny
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
>> Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
>>
>> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
>> PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
>> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD  |  http://www.apnic.net
>> ___
>>
>> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>> recipient(s)
>> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
>> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
>> all
>> copies of the original message.
>>
>> ___
>> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
>>
> ___
> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net

[sig-policy] Re: Prop-152-v001: Reduce the IPv4 delegation from /23 to /24

[Gaurav Kansal]

Hi Vivek,

Whether the recovered historical segments will go to IANA pool ?
As per this url,
https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-historical-resources/returned-ipv4-address-space/
, multiple legacy segments were returned back to IANA by APNIC.

So whether there was a policy to return the recovered historical pool to
IANA ?

Regards,
Gaurav

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 15:02, Vivek Nigam  wrote:

> Hi Gaurav,
>
>
>
> 1. The 700,000 IPs we reserved in Feb 2023 were reclaimed by APNIC under
> policy. Most of those custodians no longer operate and we were unable to
> make contact with them.
>
>
>
> 2. We are in contact with the custodians of most of the pending 2 million
> unclaimed historical resources and are assisting them with the claim
> process. We will be sending them final reminders after which we intend to
> reserve those resources.
>
>
>
> 3. Custodians of historical resources need to pay the Associate Fee of AUD
> 500 per annum from the time they open their APNIC account.
>
>
>
> https://help.apnic.net/s/article/historical-fee-change
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Vivek
>
>
>
> *From: *Gaurav Kansal 
> *Date: *Thursday, 27 July 2023 at 5:50 pm
> *To: *Vivek Nigam 
> *Cc: *sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> *Subject: *Re: [sig-policy] Re: Prop-152-v001: Reduce the IPv4 delegation
> from /23 to /24
>
> Hi Vivek,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> Just a few more questions (don't mind the too many questions from my side)
> -
>
>
>
> 1. Whether the 700,000 addresses which were added under the reserved
> category in Feb 2023, were returned by the members Or apnic claimed them on
> their own based on Historical resource policy?
>
> 2. If 700,000 addresses were claimed by APNIC based on historical resource
> policy then what was the reason for re-claiming only those 700,000
> addresses and not the complete historical range including 2M which is still
> in the available/allocated category?
>
> 3. Whether the historical resource holders pay to apnic regularly or
> aren't paying at all? If they didn't pay in the past and now the resource
> holder asks to claim back the resource, whether dues will be charged from
> the beginning itself or the current year?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gaurav
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 12:09, Vivek Nigam  wrote:
>
> Hi Gaurav,
>
>
>
> They are currently marked as allocated/assigned.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Vivek
>
>
>
> *From: *Gaurav Kansal 
> *Date: *Thursday, 27 July 2023 at 4:23 pm
> *To: *Vivek Nigam 
> *Cc: *Sanjeev Gupta , Rajesh Chharia ,
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> *Subject: *Re: [sig-policy] Re: Prop-152-v001: Reduce the IPv4 delegation
> from /23 to /24
>
> So, are those 2 million in the available/allocated category in apnic
> public database ? or in any other specific one or not in a public database
> at all ?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 11:48, Vivek Nigam  wrote:
>
> Hi Gaurav,
>
>
>
> Over 2 million historical IPs have still not been claimed under an APNIC
> account. At this stage it's hard to say how many of these will get reserved
> but we will share the stats at APNIC 56. It's worth noting that even after
> these resources are marked as reserved, the custodians have 12 months to
> prove custodianship and claim them.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Vivek
>
>
>
> *From: *Gaurav Kansal 
> *Date: *Thursday, 27 July 2023 at 2:15 pm
> *To: *Vivek Nigam 
> *Cc: *Sanjeev Gupta , Rajesh Chharia ,
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> *Subject: *Re: [sig-policy] Re: Prop-152-v001: Reduce the IPv4 delegation
> from /23 to /24
>
> In 2022, there were IPv4 2247 allocations and a total of 10,41,408 IPs
> were allocated. In 2023 to date, there are 1061 allocations and 4,71,296
> IPs are allocated.
>
> Currently, 12,97,664 IPs are marked as reserved in the APNIC database.
> With the current pace, these segments will last for roughly 15-18 months,
> without any further recovery of IP segments (the secretariat can share
> their views about the possibility of further recovery).
>
>
>
> With this policy and the current pace of allocation (i.e., around 2250
> allocations per year ), the reserved segments will last for 24-30 months.
> But this policy can push for the current member organisations to grab their
> /23 segments immediately (as per the current 103/8 policy) and can lead to
> the depletion of IPs way before, like the way urgency was seen at the time
> of implementation of 103/8 policy.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gaurav
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 06:31, Vivek Nigam  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>

[sig-policy] Re: Prop-152-v001: Reduce the IPv4 delegation from /23 to /24

[Gaurav Kansal]

Can this be done without approval of the said policy ?
The Secretariat can answer this.

Regards,
Gaurav

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 at 09:51, Rajesh Chharia  wrote:

> Dear Gaurav,
>
> I have requested APNIC EC to put a temporary halt on moving the resources
> from the reserve to available till this proposal outcome is determined.
>
> Regards
> Rajesh Chharia
>
> > On 24-Jul-2023, at 05:30, G  wrote:
> >
> > Returned/Reclaimed IP segments remains in 'Reserved' category for only
> one year (APNIC secretariat can correct me, if i am wrong) . Before the
> depletion of 'Available' pool, most of the current segments under
> 'Reserved' pool will already be moved to 'Available' category.
> >
> > So, whether the policy authors wants to not to move the 'Reserved' pool
> in 'Available' category or this policy will only applies on the segments
> available in 'Reserved' pool at the time of depletion of 'available' one ?
> > ___
> > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
> > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
> >
>
>
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net

[sig-policy] Re: SIG elections changes proposal

[Gaurav Kansal]

Hi,

As we have seen in the past, only a fraction of members use their voting rights 
in APNIC elections. 
As per trend in the past, approx 5% of eligible votes are enough for deciding 
the election results (including EC elections).
This low voting percentage is a matter of concern and APNIC has to think what 
can be done to encourage the members to use their voting rights.

In the current SIG election proposal , under section 3.4.5 voting period, it is 
proposed that the SIG voting period will start after the starting of conference
In EC and NRO NC elections, voting for the members starts well ahead of the 
conference dates, so the current proposal will not allow the members to vote 
for NRO NC and SIG in one go.
In my opinion we should have a uniformity of voting period for all the 
elections and both for members and eligible individuals.

Regards,
Gaurav Kansal


> On 27-Jan-2023, at 08:34, b.cherr...@mynet.nc wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> Please note that a proposal to change the APNIC SIG Guidelines will be
> discussed at APNIC 55 in Manila, Philippines on 28 February 2023.
> 
> The proposal will be presented at a Joint SIGs meeting for community
> input and support. If agreed, the new document will be circulated for
> an Editorial Draft comment period following APNIC 55.
> 
> Please find the proposal text below.
> 
> The current SIG Guidelines are available here:
> 
> https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines/
> 
> We encourage you to express your views regarding the proposed changes on
> the mailing list and/or at the Joint SIGs meeting.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Joy and Bertrand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Update election procedures in the SIG Guidelines
> 
> 
> 
> Proposers:Bertrand Cherrier (b.cherr...@mynet.nc)
>   Joy Chan (joyc...@twnic.tw)
> 
> 
> 1. Problem statement
> 
> During the community elections held at APNIC 54, anomalies were observed
> in the conference registration list and in patterns of online
> participation. An analysis of the data showed there was no impact on the
> APNIC 54 SIG elections. However, APNIC 54 registration and attendance
> data did indicate significant potential for manipulation of the existing
> rules and procedures in future elections.
> 
> A copy of the election analysis report is available:
> https://blog.apnic.net/wp-
> content/uploads/2022/10/APNIC54-Election-report.pdf
> 
> A high number (291) of questionable registrations from a single
> organisation was notable, as the suspect registrations will be entitled
> to vote in future elections, under current rules. This may be
> interpreted as a manipulation of the election rules, in an attempt to
> dominate future elections.
> 
> The implications are significant. SIG elections normally attract 50-100
> votes; therefore an organised voting bloc of 250+ would determine
> election results in future.
> 
> The difficulty of confirming the identities of voters indicates a
> further vulnerability to SIG elections. Prior to online elections, all
> SIG voting was in-person at a conference so voter identities could be
> confirmed.
> 
> 
> 2. Objective of policy change
> -
> To ensure the integrity of APNIC SIG elections.
> 
> 
> 3. Situation in other regions
> -
> Following are links to the election processes for similar roles in other
> RIR regions. Each region uses a different method for electing or
> appointing community representatives.
> 
> AFRINIC Policy Development Working Group:
> https://afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group#selection
> 
> ARIN Advisory Council:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/elections/processes/
> 
> LACNIC Public Policy Forum Chairs:
> https://www.lacnic.net/736/2/lacnic/process-and-requerimentos-for-the-
> elections-of-the-public-policy-forum
> 
> RIPE WG Chairs: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692
> 
> 
> 4. Proposed solution
> 
> The SIG Guidelines document the procedures for SIG elections:
> https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines/#
> _Toc70085862
> 
> Replace sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.5, and 3.7 in the SIG
> Guidelines with the following text:
> 
> 3.3 Criteria for election If more than one nomination is received by the
> closure date, an election must be held. If there is only one candidate,
> the candidate will be elected via acclamation in the SIG meeting room.
> 
> 3.4 Election procedures Elections will use the same online voting system
> as APNIC

[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v003: Historical Resources Management

[Gaurav Kansal]

I would request APNIC Secretariat to publish country wise number of historical 
account holder and number of IP owned by each account holder.
For the sake of privacy, account holder name may not be published.

Regards,
Gaurav Kansal


> On 20-Jan-2023, at 08:22, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
> 
> Hi Aftab,
>  
> 12 months after they are marked as reserved. It is the same period, either 
> they are claimed, or they will be placed in the free-pool.
>  
> To make it clear, may be instead of “After 12 months”, “After the 12 months 
> period”?
>  
> Tks for the inputs!
>  
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> @jordipalet
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> El 19/1/23, 21:40, "Aftab Siddiqui"  <mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>> escribió:
>  
> Hi Jordi,
>> 
>> 
>> 4.3. Historical Resources Management
>> 
>> a) Historical resources currently marked as reserved.
>> The custodians can claim historical resources that have been marked as 
>> reserved within 12 months of the date they were marked as reserved. 
>> After 12 months, these resources will be placed in the free pool for 
>> re-delegation.
>  
> When will this 12 months period start? 
>  
> Regards,
> 
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>  
>  
> ___ sig-policy - 
> https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an 
> email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net 
> <mailto:sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net>
> **
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com <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/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net 
> <mailto:sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net>


___
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net

[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management

[Gaurav Kansal]

> On 07-Sep-2022, at 14:19, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
> 
> Hi Brett,
>  
> Somehow, I actually responded to your last point before reading it in my 
> previous email.
>  
> I think is really bad that the EC takes decisions that belong to the 
> community, unless the community is being called for considering a proposal. I 
> don’t think it happened, and actually instead, when I submitted a proposal, 
> it was rejected. The EC, the chairs and the community should learn a lesson 
> from this.
This is not the only instance where APNIC EC has decided the policies without 
even consulting with community. 
>  
> And yes, the EC decision is binding for the staff, unless we make a policy 
> proposal to disallow the EC decision(s) or even change the bylaws. Too late 
> anyway for this meeting.
>  
> And to be clear, I’ve not talked to the EC about this proposal, neither the 
> one I submmited about a year ago. I was already considering this as a result 
> of the staff presentation on several issues with policies.
>  
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> @jordipalet
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> El 29/8/22, 13:17, "Brett O'Hara" mailto:br...@fj.com.au>> 
> escribió:
>  
> Thanks for your clarification Vivek.
>  
> Text of the Resolution is as follows;
>  
> Resolution 2021-09: The EC resolved that all historical resource holders will 
> need to become, or remain, a Member or Non-member of APNIC on and from [1 
> January 2023], in order to continue to receive registry services from APNIC.
>  
> Interpretation from the secretariat via Vivek is that this implies all 
> unclaimed historical records will be placed in reserved status, regardless of 
> being advertised or not, and subject to ROA AS0 under 5.1.4 on the 1st of 
> January 2023.
>  
> I see prop-147 is an interpretation of EC resolution 2021-09 and attempts to 
> clarify this within the Policy.
>  
> My first question is procedural and governance related.  Can or should the 
> secretariat implement the EC resolution without the Policy being updated?
>  
> If the EC could be considered an effective co-sponsor of this proposal, my 
> previous comments now have a broader audience.
>  
> Does the EC still believe the date they set on EC Resolution 2021-09 is still 
> reasonable given the progress of the HRM process and the current impact to 
> the potential 193k+ ((175 in progress + 581 no response)* 256 minimum size) 
> active Internet endpoints and how does the Policy SIG address the EC for 
> their response on this consideration?
>  
> Regards,
>Brett
>  
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 6:15 PM Vivek Nigam  > wrote:
>> Hi Aftab,
>>  
>> APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space 
>> (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest 
>> stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a 
>> different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 
>> TAL as a routing information service only.
>>  
>> https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limitations-of-liability-for-rpki-2/
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> Hi Jordi,
>>  
>> > If I understood correctly the implications of the EC decision, *if* tis 
>> > policy proposal doesn’t go thru they will become reserved anyway.
>> >  
>> > Could the staff confirm that?
>>  
>> Yes, as per the EC resolution 2021-09, all historical resource holders will 
>> need to become, or remain, a member or non-member of APNIC on and from 1 
>> January 2023, in order to continue to receive registry services from APNIC. 
>> Any historical resources that are not managed under an APNIC account from 1 
>> January 2023 will be removed from whois and placed into “Reserved” status.  
>>  
>> Our understanding is that your proposal is to address the actions that need 
>> to be taken 12 months after these resources have been placed into reserved 
>> status.
>>  
>> Thanks
>> Vivek
>>  
>> From: Aftab Siddiqui > >
>> Date: Saturday, 27 August 2022 at 2:30 pm
>> To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > >
>> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net  
>> mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>>, Brett 
>> O'Hara mailto:br...@fj.com.au>>
>> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
>> 
>> Hi Jordi,
>> I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the 
>> reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we 
>> can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion. 
>>  
>> Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify 
>> what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>>  
>>  
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara > > wrote:

[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management

[Gaurav Kansal]

> On 07-Sep-2022, at 14:02, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> The difference is that they have RPKI and whois support. Not after January 
> 1st.
> 
> I fully agree that the important point is to continue the IPv6 deployment, 
> but having those resources back into APNIC pool, will help some members or 
> newcomers to use some of those addresses for an ordered transition.
With the current allocation pace of IPv4, APNIC existing ip resources will not 
going to deplete with next few years. So no point in pushing this policy just 
for reclaiming back the historical resources. 
> Even for IPv6-ony + IPv4aaS you need *some* IPv4 pools. More and more 
> organizations (enterprises), will come on board with direct APNIC assignments 
> due to IPv6, and the best way to do that, technically speaking, is having 
> also a small IPv4 subnet.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> El 27/8/22, 2:25, "Tim Warnock"  escribió:
> 
>I'd like evidence to support "Resources in the wild could be more easily 
> hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities.", after all - these 
> prefixes have already existed for a significant time already.
> 
>I also concur that we should leave these to reserved if unclaimed and 
> instead of continuing to keep expending effort on IPv4 that we focus on IPv6 
> deployments.
> 
>-Original Message-
>From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy  
>Sent: Friday, 26 August 2022 10:19 PM
>To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
> 
>Hi Andrew, all,
> 
> 
> 
>I see it otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
>We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we 
> don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be 
> “frozen” into reserved status.
> 
> 
> 
>Please note this:
> 
> 
> 
>“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical 
> resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or 
> Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. 
> Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in 
> the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved 
> status.”
> 
> 
> 
>Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of 
> course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), 
> means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal 
> reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 
> 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
> 
> 
> 
>Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind 
> of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
> 
> 
> 
>In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months 
> may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 
> months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be 
> unable to complete the project in the next year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>Regards,
> 
>Jordi
> 
>@jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager"   > escribió:
> 
> 
> 
>Hi,
> 
> 
> 
>Thanks for this data vivek.
> 
> 
> 
>On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the 
> impact is too large.
> 
> 
> 
>Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what 
> can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 
> still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal 
> having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
> 
> 
> 
>Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam   > wrote:
> 
>   Hi Andrew,
> 
> 
> 
>   Please see my responses below.
> 
> 
> 
>   > a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in 
> the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
> 
> 
> 
>   We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 
> historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of 
> these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the 
> breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
> 
> 
> 
>   Retained by custodian: 81
> 
>   These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under 
> active APNIC accounts now.
> 
> 
> 
>   Being claimed by custodian: 175
> 
>   We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the 
> process of claiming these prefixes. 
> 
> 
> 
>   No response: 581
> 
>   We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as 
> yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN 
> announcing these prefixes. 
> 
> 
> 
>   Yet to contact: 44
> 
>   No valid contact 

[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management

[Gaurav Kansal]

Hi Jordi, 

Please find the comments inline — 

> On 07-Sep-2022, at 13:59, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
>  
> The EC decision is clear. If there is no policy, they will frozen on January 
> 1st. There is no possible secretariat discretion to change that or do 
> anything different.
>  
> Those resources will be placed in reserved status, no RPKI, no whois, no 
> services, etc. For me this is worst in terms of chances to be misused, 
> hijacked, etc, than today’s situation.
As the resources are currently not under any apnic account, then there will be 
no RPKI valid for them anyway. Plus till date, RPKI is not the thing which is 
must across the Internet And as APNIC secretariat also told that some of the 
resources are there in global routing table, that means, that changing the 
WHOIS , RPKI will not do much impact to them. Please correct me if I am wrong. 

>  
> This proposal allows that deadline to be extended further 12 months.
>  
> I don’t agree that they exist in the routing table. Some may be there, some 
> not. That's the reason why some of them can’t be contacted.
>  
> If you (the community) believe that the time frame of 12 months is short, 
> I’ve no problem to increase it to 18 months, but something needs to be done.
>  
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> @jordipalet
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> El 26/8/22, 15:11, "Andrew Yager"  > escribió:
>  
> Hi Jordi,
>  
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 22:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy 
> mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>> wrote:
>> Hi Andrew, all,
>>  
>> I see it otherwise.
>>  
>> We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t 
>> have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” 
>> into reserved status. 
>>  
>> Please note this:
>>  
>> “The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical 
>> resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or 
>> Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. 
>> Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published 
>> in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved 
>> status.”
>  
> In February 2022, APNIC made a decision that to RPKI validation and 
> registration services would only be provided to resource holders who were 
> members of APNIC, and that all historical resources would be required to be 
> registered with APNIC. This is a sensible decision.
>  
> They gave 12 months for this process to happen. The evidence would suggest 
> that in that period of time, APNIC has not successfully achieved the goal of 
> bringing these resources into membership status. There may be any number of 
> reasons for this, but the statistics indicate that to date, APNIC has only 
> been partially successful. With 4 months to go, it would appear that to date 
> this process is not likely to yield a high degree of success at present given 
> the high number of prefixes present in the internet table that have not yet 
> made contact with APNIC.
>  
> This policy proposal binds APNIC to taking a particular course of action when 
> the 12 months are up. Without this policy, it would appear to me that there 
> is no specific statement by APNIC on what will or will not happen to these 
> resources. From what I can see, it will be up to the Secretariat's discretion 
> to work out what to do; and in lack of specific policies APNIC has 
> historically leaned towards a functional internet.
>  
>> Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of 
>> course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), 
>> means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal 
>> reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 
>> 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
>  
> It could be argued that effectively they are now.
>  
> But, they exist in the global routing table. Someone is originating them.
>  
> Absolutely, it's worth having a discussion about what should happen with 
> these resources. But, the current proposal is not a good option, and I do not 
> see a path to modify this proposal in such a way that addresses what should 
> be very real concerns for all internet operators.
>  
> The only upside that I can see from this policy is that the resources can 
> ultimately be reclaimed and reallocated to members as part of the reclaimed 
> IPv4 space policies. But even then, until the prefixes are no longer 
> originated, this is not viable.
>  
>>  Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of 
>> malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
>  
> As a MANRS member, and an organisation who implements ROA and RPKI, I 
> wholeheartedly agree that as much of the internet should implement RPKI and 
> ROA as is possible, and resources should be signed.
>  
> But, this policy is not 

[sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

[Gaurav Kansal]

Hello everyone,

In my opinion, even Trading of IPs (leave apart the lease for making dollars) 
in the name of transfers must be stopped.
If organisation doesn’t need IPs , then those must be returned back so that 
smaller organisations can get it from the RIR.

Currently, only the one which have millions of dollars can think of getting 
IPs. In today’s scenario, no one can start the Data Centre, ISP business 
without investing millions in IPs. Even education and research org doesn’t have 
an option to get IPs from RIR.

This is like horse trading and isn’t a good practice for the community as a 
whole.

Regards,
Gaurav Kansal


> On 02-Sep-2022, at 12:20, raj...@smartlinkindia.com wrote:
> 
> Dear Team,
> 
> As Mr. Satoru, mentioned there are changes, but if carefully implemented in 
> phased manner, unauthorised leasing can be stopped.
> 
> For example in first phase, leasing among countries can be stopped, if the 
> owner company doesn't provide any services beyond its home country. For 
> example if a company in India doesn't have any operation in Singapore or 
> Japan , can't lease resources to those companies in Singapore or Japan. This 
> can be verified by taking business registration documents of both lease and 
> lessor. 
> Once this is done same may be granularized at RIR level, where in country 
> like India, leasing can be restricted to the licensed service area for 
> service provider within their designated service area. 
> This may stop majority of issues, barring few exceptions. 
> Some more brainstorming is required for better understanding and precise 
> implementation.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rajesh Panwala
> For Smartlink Solutions Pvt Ltd
> +91-9227886001
> +91-9426110781
> 
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2022, 10:44 AM Tsurumaki, Satoru  <mailto:stsur...@bbix.net>> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team..
> 
> I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-148,
> based on a meeting we organised on 29th Aug to discuss these proposals.
> 
> Many participants support the intent of the proposal but felt that
> implementation would be challenging.
> 
> (comment details)
> - It is undisputed that the current policy allows for the distribution
>   of IP addresses according to the actual demand of one's own
>   organization or directly connected customers, and does not allow for
>   the leasing of IP addresses.
> - I think this proposal would be useful if the concept of leasing is
> 　 accurately defined.
> - Leasing IP addresses that damage the accuracy of whois information
>   should not be allowed, but I find it difficult to implement.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team
> 
> 2022年8月26日(金) 17:27 Shaila Sharmin  <mailto:shaila.sharmin@gmail.com>>:
> >
> > Dear SIG members,
> >
> > A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v002: Clarification - Leasing of
> > Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
> >
> > Information about earlier versions is available from:
> >
> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148 
> > <http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148>
> >
> > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
> >
> >   - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
> >   - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> >   - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
> >
> > Please find the text of the proposal below.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
> > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> >
> >
> > --
> > prop-148-v002: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
> > --
> >
> > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
> >Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudh...@ccaoi.in 
> > <mailto:amritachoudh...@ccaoi.in>)
> >Fernando Frediani (fhfred...@gmail.com 
> > <mailto:fhfred...@gmail.com>)
> >
> >
> > 1. Problem statement
> > 
> > RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
> > according to need, in such a way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
> > to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
> > not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
> >
> > When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
> > reasons, the expected thing would be to return said a

[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management

[Gaurav Kansal]

Hi Vivek,

Do we have public information available for 581+44 prefixes (which are under 
’No response’ and ‘yet to contact’ category) ?
If it is available, then I (and other community member also) can try to contact 
the resource holders in my geographic area.

If not, then can we think of sharing this so that community can help APNIC in 
contacting the resource holders.

Thanks,
Gaurav Kansal

> On 26-Aug-2022, at 13:15, vi...@apnic.net wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
>  
> Please see my responses below.
>  
> > a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the 
> > global table), but not yet claimed through this process
>  
> We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical 
> IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these 
> prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the 
> breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
>  
> Retained by custodian: 81
> These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active 
> APNIC accounts now.
>  
> Being claimed by custodian: 175
> We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process 
> of claiming these prefixes.
>  
> No response: 581
> We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We 
> are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN 
> announcing these prefixes.
>  
> Yet to contact: 44
> No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to 
> look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as 
> contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.   
>  
> No longer needed: 4
> The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in 
> the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they 
> are announcing them.
>  
> > b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not 
> > successfully justified
>  
> So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not 
> provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the 
> claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to 
> properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested 
> additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has 
> refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their 
> claims through the year.
>  
> Thanks
> Vivek
>  
> From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi mailto:su...@apnic.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm
> To: Andrew Yager mailto:and...@rwts.com.au>>, JORDI 
> PALET MARTINEZ  <mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>>
> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> 
> mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>>
> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
> 
> Dear Andrew,
> 
> Thank you for requesting data.
> We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
> 
> Regards,
> Sunny
> APNIC Secretariat
> 
> On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
> Is there any data indicating:
>  
> a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the 
> global table), but not yet claimed through this process
> b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not 
> successfully justified
>  
> I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC 
> members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try 
> and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
>  
> Andrew
>  
>  
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy 
> mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>> wrote:
> Hi Sunny, all,
>  
> Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also 
> adding the following text:
> “Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be 
> maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, 
> the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made 
> available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
>  
> Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a 
> single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new 
> version.
>  
>  
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> @jordipalet
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi"  <mailto:su...@apnic.net>> escribió:
>  
> Hi all, 
> 
> This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also 
> available on the proposal page.
> 
> http:

[sig-policy] Re: APNIC Nomination Review Committee - Proposal

[Gaurav Kansal]

> On 25-Aug-2022, at 12:52, aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Hi Gaurav,
> Thanks for your comments
> 
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 16:31, Gaurav Kansal  <mailto:gaurav.kan...@nic.in>> wrote:
> We should avoid un-limited number of terms for any member in any role, like 
> max 2 consecutive tenure for any post and a cool off period of 2-4 years for 
> next tenure and have a max limit on an individual member tenures.
> 
> NRC is for review of all elected community nominations. For this particular 
> suggestion, you have to change SIG guidelines, NRO-NC election procedure and 
> also the APNIC bylaws. This change is out of the scope of NRC but your point 
> is taken and NRC can publish the number of years a candidate has already 
> served on a particular seat. 
For NomCom or NRC, or whatever for this proposal is, don’t it need the same 
approvals, which are required for bringing the reforms in the current election 
processes ? As per the timeline/stages section, it look like this 
document/proposal is pushed from the top to the bottom and set timelines are 
very stringent. Don’t it be better if we have the election and voting rights 
reforms before this NRC/NomCom ?
Also, what’s the general trend in APNIC w.r.t. proposals ? Is it top-down 
approach or bottom-up approach, as this proposal is first reviewed by the top 
and then shared with the community, so is it a general trend in APNIC ? I am 
considering that APNIC doesn’t think that elected members or the APNIC leaders 
are the only wise members in this region.

>  
> This will help in bringing the new blood into the system and will be able to 
> achieve geographical diversity , plus a rotation will be able to help us in 
> catching the flaws/frauds in the very early stages.
> 
> If you read the document then you will understand how we are supporting at 
> least the geographical diversity in the NRC. While I do support your point of 
> geographical diversity, to make it clear Diversity is not about geography 
> only and we have to make APNIC more inclusive at every level. 
> 
> from geographical pov 
> EC - 7 members representing 7 different economies
> NRO NC - 3 members 3 different economies
> SIG - Routing Security - 3 members 3 economies
> SIG - Cooperation - 2 members 2 economies
> SIG - NIR - 2 members 2 economies
> SIG - Policy - 3 members 3 economies
> 
> Out of these 20 elected members there are at least 15 different economies 
> represented here out of 56 economies of APNIC service region. 
> 
> We have to think and achieve the resilience so that we should be in a same 
> position of AFRINIC.
> 
> Any further suggestions to improve the NRC?

In one of the discussions, I proposed for building the appropriate resilience 
at various levels of the core institutions of APNIC in order to prevent any 
major disruptions to the operations of APNIC. To start with we can explore the 
feasibility of setting up a regional office of APNIC in any other member 
country and distribute some of the resources of APNIC across different 
geographies, So that any legal/regulatory actions of one host country doesn't 
bring the operations of APNIC to a standstill.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get views of APNIC on this.

Thanks,
Gaurav Kansal


>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>  
> 
>> On 25-Aug-2022, at 05:38, aftab.siddi...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Everyone,
>> 
>> As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected 
>> position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination on 
>> various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an 
>> internal due diligence process is performed and then the names of nominees 
>> are published with their details. The process ran so far on a need-to-know 
>> basis and the community had access to information that was deemed essential 
>> by the Secretariat. In order to build a strong and community driven 
>> structure it is important to have community oversight in the whole process, 
>> which at the moment doesn't exist. For that reason we are proposing a new 
>> committee called "Nomination Review Committee" and we believe that it will 
>> bring much needed improvements to the process of electing members to various 
>> community elected positions.
>> 
>> Please review the proposal here 
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing>
>>  and provide your feedback through the mailing list. We are also organising 
>> a BoF 
>> <https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom>
>>  on 14th Sep during

[sig-policy] Re: APNIC Nomination Review Committee - Proposal

[Gaurav Kansal]

We should avoid un-limited number of terms for any member in any role, like max 
2 consecutive tenure for any post and a cool off period of 2-4 years for next 
tenure and have a max limit on an individual member tenures.
This will help in bringing the new blood into the system and will be able to 
achieve geographical diversity , plus a rotation will be able to help us in 
catching the flaws/frauds in the very early stages.
We have to think and achieve the resilience so that we should be in a same 
position of AFRINIC.

> On 25-Aug-2022, at 05:38, aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected 
> position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination on 
> various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an 
> internal due diligence process is performed and then the names of nominees 
> are published with their details. The process ran so far on a need-to-know 
> basis and the community had access to information that was deemed essential 
> by the Secretariat. In order to build a strong and community driven structure 
> it is important to have community oversight in the whole process, which at 
> the moment doesn't exist. For that reason we are proposing a new committee 
> called "Nomination Review Committee" and we believe that it will bring much 
> needed improvements to the process of electing members to various community 
> elected positions.
> 
> Please review the proposal here 
> 
>  and provide your feedback through the mailing list. We are also organising a 
> BoF 
> 
>  on 14th Sep during APNIC54 to further discuss this in-person/online.
> 
> BoF: 
> https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom
>  
> 
> 
> Link: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
> On behalf of SIG Chairs/Co-Chairs
> ___
> sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net



___
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net