Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Dear David, Thaank you for your comment. The main point of our concern is if proposed with a set with prop-118, it may encourage the IP address to be used for abusive activities, to be able to regularly change IP address in a short time span. Please see my comments inline as clarifications on

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Hi, On 12 September 2017 at 20:04, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > > Hi Aftab: > > I believe your understanding of spammer operation is not at all based on > reality. > > > Aftab’s description of spammer operations

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Hi Hossain and Hiroki, Thank you for the question, Yes the agreement between the offering party and receiving party would need to have an end date for the transfer for the transfer to be defined as and handled as temporary. Duration of the transfer is up to the offering and receiving party.

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

> On Aug 18, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > > Hi Aftab: > > I believe your understanding of spammer operation is not at all based on > reality. Aftab’s description of spammer operations is very much based in reality. > Spammers merely need one to two-month

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

I oppose this policy. Any legitimate case for a “temporary transfer” that I can envision would be supported through SWIP from an LIR providing services. Otherwise, this amounts to a lease-style transaction which is most popular when related to activities that are generally considered harmful

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

In the policy it only says "A temporary transfer must have an end date". What about the end date ? Who will define the end ? Is it define by requester who are interest to temporary transfer resource to receiver ? *Regards / Jahangir * On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:16 PM, chku

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

policy. Regards, Hiroki --- Hiroki Kawabata(kawab...@nic.ad.jp) Hostmaster, IP Address Department Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC) Subject: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG From: chku <c...@twnic.net.tw> Date: Wed Aug 09 2017 15

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Dear Satoru, Thank you for conveying the feedback here. On 8 September 2017 at 09:32, Satoru Tsurumaki wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > > Satoru Tsurumaki, with Policy Working Group hat. > > I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-119, >

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Dear Adam, On 1 September 2017 at 11:09, Adam Gosling wrote: > Dear David, > > > > The APNIC Secretariat is reviewing the policy proposals under discussion and > seeks clarification to better understand the intention of prop-119-v001: > Temporary transfers. > > > > APNIC

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Dear David, The APNIC Secretariat is reviewing the policy proposals under discussion and seeks clarification to better understand the intention of prop-119-v001: Temporary transfers. APNIC remains neutral and objective about the outcome of this discussion and only requires clarification to

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Hi Matt, On 1 September 2017 at 10:30, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > Hi David, > > Oh, I thought I had replied, but seems not. > >>Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as > to not having them at all. >>You do not have full control of the resources in

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Hi David, Oh, I thought I had replied, but seems not. >Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as to not having them at all. >You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database, >you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation. I'm afraid you just

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Hi, On 23 August 2017 at 10:32, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > Hi Proposer, > > I have same view as Mr. David Huberman. > From the problem statement of prop-119 which says, > >>1. Problem statement >> >> >>It

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Hi Proposer, I have same view as Mr. David Huberman. >From the problem statement of prop-119 which says, >1. Problem statement > > >It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary >transfer under the

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Hi On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 16:30 Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > > Hi Aftab: >> >> I believe your understanding of spammer operation is not at all based on >> reality. >> > > Actually, you are right. I have no experience of running or facilitating > any spammer operations. >

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Hi Fakrul: "The policy which aims to bring more accurate whois database for today's leasing market of space actually forces leaser to register their leaser's information in the whois database by offering protection of leasee and leaser's interest and by agreeing to set an amount time of

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

​The mainly discuss is the reason for temporary transfers, but not at the APNIC staff work load (As we know APNIC have a lot money to serve us and can hire more staffs, what we paid for the yearly fee) Best Regards, Ernest Tse Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd. // Web:

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Just to have a better understanding; what is the tenure of "Temporary Transfers"? In the policy it only says "A temporary transfer must have an end date". What about the end date as 2999? As other policies working more on Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff; I think this

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

​Hi all, Can I know what is the point of this 'Temporary transfers' proposal ? If someone needed a block for sending spamming, nowadays it also can do, no need temporary transfers policy. Best Regards, Ernest Tse Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd. // Web:

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Hi Aftab: I believe your understanding of spammer operation is not at all based on reality. Spammers merely need one to two-month space, and they disappear soon. Thus, there is no point for them to undergo this temporary transfer in order to sort out all the APNIC membership with a huge amount

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

On 18 August 2017 at 08:22, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > >> >> It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers. >> > > And? > >> >> It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able >> or interested in receiving the IP space in form of

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Hi David ,Aftab, Thank you for the reply. (snip) >> I do not believe that spammer would benefit from this policy as they >> would have to register with APNIC as members and provide all the >> needed paperwork such as company registration papers, ID/passports, >> billing address etc... > > > It

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

> It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers. > > And? > It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able > or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or > sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for > full

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Thanks for the explanation. Now I have the rationale for this proposal. I can support it. Kuo Wu Sanjeev Gupta 於 2017年8月18日 週五，11:28寫道： > > > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > Mild support. > > > - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? > No. > > > - Is

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

> - Do you support or oppose the proposal? Mild support. > - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? No. > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? No. > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? An explicit requirement that the receiving

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Good point. Who propose this policy? And rational is? Kuo Wu Satoru Tsurumaki 於 2017年8月17日 週四，18:48寫道： > I oppose this proposal. > > I would like to know who and why need the "temporary" address. > I could not imagine the use case of this proposal except for

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

To: sig-policy > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at > APNIC 44 Polic y SIG > > I oppose this proposal. > > I would like to know who and why need the "temporary" address. > I could not imagine the use case of this proposal except f

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Hi Satoru, Thank you for sharing those views. On 17 August 2017 at 13:48, Satoru Tsurumaki wrote: > I oppose this proposal. > > I would like to know who and why need the "temporary" address. It actually came up a few time from larger networks who tend to want

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

I oppose this proposal. I would like to know who and why need the "temporary" address. I could not imagine the use case of this proposal except for the spammer who get the temporary address which set very short period, sent huge number of SPAM, return the address and run away. After that, the