Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

Hi Aftab, Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you. Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the last 12 months is 97. Below is the breakdown of reasons: Fraud: 4 Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1

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] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

> > I don't think George's data can leads your conclusion. > > If the data from APNIC Sec can't help you to make up your mind then there is nothing I can do. The information was good enough for me. > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 15:35 Aftab Siddiqui > wrote: > >> Thanks

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

Exactly, and I appreciate your respect instead of merely blaming my perusal of data. There are 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters for completing a transfer request, with 158 request, which means in total 700-800 emails can be saved for no reason. The aim of the policy is to save unnecessary

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block

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

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

My reads to the data shows exact needs for the policy. So don't blame data. On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 16:03 Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > >> I don't think George's data can leads your conclusion. >> >> > If the data from APNIC Sec can't help you to make up your mind then

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

*Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1* Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion after reading the data. On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 13:04 Lu Heng wrote: > My reads to the data shows exact needs for the policy. > > So don't blame data. > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block

​Hi all, I don`t support for this policy. Reason: Best Regards, Ernest Tse Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd. // Web:

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

​Dear All, Here is my opinion, (1) If the transfer is denied by APNIC, does it mean the IP address will be wasted on the Internet ? (2) If there are no need policy applied , can it help the un-routed IP address utilization % ? (3) The recipient request transfer does it mean they have

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block

​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

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block

Hi all, - Do you support or oppose the proposal? I support this proposal. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? No, personally I do not need another address range but it is at least protecting the last block for those who need some and not for the transfer market. Moreover, if you

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

Hi, On 23 August 2017 at 14:32, Ernest Tse wrote: > ​Dear All, > > Here is my opinion, > > (1) If the transfer is denied by APNIC, does it mean the IP address will > be wasted on the Internet ? > Yes, if the transfer is denied the address space will remain unused

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

Hi, On 23 August 2017 at 10:34, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > Thanks George for the details. > > So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist. > The policy is not trying to fix a "problem", it is trying to simplify things and lighten the administrative

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