Dear Team,
I also support Mr. Ajay. For M one can't predict. Policy should
accomodate M cases.
Rajesh Panwala
On 12-Sep-2017 10:04 AM, "Ajai Kumar" wrote:
> Dear Policy chair,
> I personally partial support if M& A case be excluded as no one knows when
> M case can come
Dear Policy chair,
I personally partial support if M& A case be excluded as no one knows when
M case can come into picture looking at the business of company.
Regards,
Ajai Kumar
On 8 September 2017 at 14:31, Satoru Tsurumaki <
satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
I again put my support this proposal as i have done before .
*Regards / Jahangir *
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:12 PM, chku wrote:
> Dear SIG members
>
> A new version of the proposal "prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4
> addresses in the final /8 block" has been sent to
Dear Adam,
Thank you so much for reviewing my proposal, and I'm sorry for replying late.
2017-09-01 17:08 GMT+09:00 Adam Gosling :
>
> - Would the prohibition apply to resources that are received as the result of
> a transfer? Or does this proposal only apply to delegations
Dear Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-116,
based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.
Substantial support expressed for the proposal with reasons below.
* Transfer of
sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] De la part de chku
Envoyé : mercredi 9 août 2017 17:12
À : sig-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
Objet : [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to
transfer IPv4 addresses in the final
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] De la part de chku
Envoyé : mercredi 9 août 2017 17:12
À : sig-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
Objet : [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer
IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block
Dear SIG members
A new version of the proposal
Hi all,
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
I don`t support this proposal.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
It is blocking the freedom of internet included business transfer or marketing
selling.
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
I
Hi all,
I don`t support for this policy.
Reason:
Best Regards,
Ernest Tse
Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.
// Web:
Hi Tomohiro and All,
While I support the rational of this proposal, I would like to suggest
excluding M transfer from the scope and allowing it as it is.
I don't think v4 space allocated from final /8 to the company which is a
target of M would become a deal breaker of "real" M
Rather, people who
Dear SIG members
A new version of the proposal "prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4
addresses in the final /8 block" has been sent to the Policy SIG for
review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will
be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15
11 matches
Mail list logo