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

[yang...@126.com]

Dear sunny

  Thank you very much for your feedback.



Alex Yang
 
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Date: 2018-02-19 10:19
To: yang...@126.com; sig-policy
Subject: Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Hi Alex,
 
Here is the date you requested.
 
>  >1、How many invalid Whois contact reports received by
> APNIC in 2017？  Or  per month in average in 2017？
 
In 2017, we received a total of 3,915 reports of invalid contacts in
whois database. These reports included:
 
- Multiple reports for the same invalid whois contact
- Reports for invalid contacts associated with customer assignments
- Reports for unresponsive contacts (Email does not bounce but whois
contact does not respond)
- Network abuse activities reported incorrectly via invalid contact
report form
 
>  >2、How many delegations from the 103/8 ?
 
To date, we have made 13884 delegations from the 103/8 pool.
 
>  >3、How many m cases from 103/8 are adopted by apnic
> before the prop-116, and how many be prohibited after the policy?
 
The number of M transfers from 103/8 address block between 15 April
2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
 
Since the implementation of prop 116, APNIC has rejected 18 M transfer 
requests as they did not meet the policy criteria.
 
>  >4、How many  ranges from 103/8 have the transfer
> requirement but due to the prop-116, which are in the state of waiting?
 
We don't have this number as we don’t know how many of them wish to
transfer.
 
Regards
Sunny
APNIC Secretariat
 
On 19/02/2018 11:27 AM, yang...@126.com wrote:
> Hello Sig policy chairs,
> 
>  >Can I ask you some questions about :
>  >
>  >1、How many invalid Whois contact reports received by 
> APNIC in 2017？  Or  per month in average in 2017？
>  >2、How many delegations from the 103/8 ?
>  >3、How many m cases from 103/8 are adopted by apnic 
> before the prop-116, and how many be prohibited after the policy?
>  >4、How many  ranges from 103/8 have the transfer 
> requirement but due to the prop-116, which are in the state of waiting ?
> 
> 
> yang...@126.com
> 
> *From:* sig-policy-request 
> *Date:* 2018-02-01 16:29
> *To:* sig-policy 
> *Subject:* sig-policy Digest, Vol 165, Issue 11
> 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
>[SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] (Guangliang Pan)
> --
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 08:29:45 +
> From: Guangliang Pan 
> To: Owen DeLong 
> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy 
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
> Message-ID:
> 
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 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 
> Cc: Guangliang Pan ; mailman_SIG-policy
> 
> 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 

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

[George Kuo]

Hi Skeeve and all,

Ahead of the upcoming policy SIG, I'd like to share more info about how 
APNIC secretariat evaluates M & A requests. As part of our due diligence 
check, we have the procedure to verify the

authenticity of the M & A request documentations received. Circumstances
where it's obvious to APNIC that the transaction is fraudulent or
fabricated, to the best of our knowledge, APNIC will reject the transfer
request and terminate membership as per the Membership agreement.

M & A can take many forms and it's difficult for APNIC to be the sole
arbitrator to judge the motivations behind and decide if it is in good
or bad faith.

thanks

George

On 1/2/18 2:42 am, Skeeve Stevens wrote:

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
> 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