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

[Skeeve Stevens]

With these statistics, I fail to see the problem that was being addressed
as opposed to the problem is now causes by limiting the way people do their
business.


...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 <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
<https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> wrote:

> Hello Owen,
>
>
>
> There is 1.86% of the delegations from 103/8 block have been transferred
> by M Out of that, only 5 ranges transferred more than once.
>
>
>
> There are 152 members acquired 103/8 ranges via M transfers. It is 1% of
> the total membership (includes members under NIRs). Out of that, 123
> members received one range, 16 members received two ranges and 13 members
> received more two ranges.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Guangliang
>
> ==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 February 2018 3:00 AM
> *To:* Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia>
> *Cc:* Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net>; mailman_SIG-policy <
> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> 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 <skeeve+sigpolicy@
> 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 <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
> Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>
>
> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
> <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
>
>
>
> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> 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 <g...@apnic.net>
> *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz>; 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 <g...@apnic.net> 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

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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 10:09 , Skeeve Stevens 
> <skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia> 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 <mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia> 
> ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia <http://eintellegonetworks.asia/>
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <>
> Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; 
> Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>
> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile 
> <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve 
> <https://keybase.io/skeeve>
> 
> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
> 
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com 
> <mailto:o...@delong.com>> 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 
>> <skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia 
>> <mailto:skeeve+sigpol...@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 
>> <mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia> ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia 
>> <http://eintellegonetworks.asia/>
>> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <>
>> Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; 
>> Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>
>> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile 
>> <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve 
>> <https://keybase.io/skeeve>
>> 
>> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
>> 
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net 
>> <mailto:g...@apnic.net>> 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 
>> <mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>] 
>> Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49

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

[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 <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
<https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> 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 <skeeve+sigpolicy@
> 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 <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
> Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>
> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
> <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
>
> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> 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 <g...@apnic.net>
>> *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz>; 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 <g...@apnic.net> 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 <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>
>> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>> *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

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

[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 
> <skeeve+sigpol...@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 <mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia> 
> ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia <http://eintellegonetworks.asia/>
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <>
> Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; 
> Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>
> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile 
> <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve 
> <https://keybase.io/skeeve>
> 
> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
> 
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net 
> <mailto:g...@apnic.net>> 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 
> <mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM
> To: Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net <mailto:g...@apnic.net>>
> Cc: Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz <mailto:sanj...@dcs1.biz>>; 
> mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net <mailto: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 <g...@apnic.net 
> <mailto:g...@apnic.net>> 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> 
> [mailto: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 <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz 
> <mailto:michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>>
> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net <mailto:sig-pol...@apnic.net>>
> 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 <tel:+65%209855%201208>   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane 
> <http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane>
>  
> 
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr 
> <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz <mailto: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

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

[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 <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
<https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:08 PM, andrew khoo <andrew.k...@as136019.net>
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 <g...@apnic.net> 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 <g...@apnic.net>
>> *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz>; 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 <g...@apnic.net> 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 <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>
>> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>> *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 <
>

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

[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 <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
<https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> 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 <g...@apnic.net>
> *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz>; 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 <g...@apnic.net> 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 <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>
> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
> *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, Bertr

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

[Rajesh Panwala]

Dear Team,

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

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

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:38 PM, andrew khoo <andrew.k...@as136019.net>
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 <g...@apnic.net> 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 <g...@apnic.net>
>> *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz>; 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 <g...@apnic.net> 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 <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>
>> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
>> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively".  People who
>> "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different
>> now.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was
>> sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the
>> rules were changing.
>>
>>
>>
>> APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sanjeev Gupta
>> +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208>   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <
>> michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
>>
>> Not supported
>>
>>
>>
>> The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>>
>>
>>
>> None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer 
>> IPv4 addresses in
>>
>> the final /8 block.
>>
>> ___
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Mike*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis
>> ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier
>> *Sent:* Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m.
>> *To:* sig-pol...@apnic.net
>> *Subject:* [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear SIG members,
>>
>> The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has
>> been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>>
>> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in
>> Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
>&g

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

[andrew khoo]

we will vote to support this policy.

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

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

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

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




On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> 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 <g...@apnic.net>
> *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz>; 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 <g...@apnic.net> 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 <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>
> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
> *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: M

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

[Sanjeev Gupta]

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 <
michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:

> Not supported
>
>
>
> The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
>
> ___
>
> Disadvantages:
>
>
>
> None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer 
> IPv4 addresses in
>
> the final /8 block.
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
>
> *Mike*
>
>
>
> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@
> lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier
> *Sent:* Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m.
> *To:* sig-pol...@apnic.net
> *Subject:* [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>
>
>
> Dear SIG members,
>
> The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has
> been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in
> Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
>
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>tell the community about your situation.
>  - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>  - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>  - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
>effective?
>
> Information about this proposal is available at:
>
>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>
> Regards
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
>
> ---
>
>
>
> prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Proposer:Alex Yang
>
>  yang...@126.com
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
>
> the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
>
> 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
>
> block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
>
>
>
> However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>
> Those 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
>
> ---
>
> The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for
> the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
> necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence
> Force.  If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose,
> copy or
> distribute this message or the information in it.  If you have received
> this message in error, please Email or 

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

[Henderson Mike, Mr]

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 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

---

The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or 
distribute this message or the information in it.

If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
the sender immediately.
*  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