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

[David Hilario]

Dear Satoru,

Thank you for reporting back those views.

I will try to clarify where I can.


On 8 September 2017 at 09:32, Satoru Tsurumaki
 wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
> I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan.
>
> I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-118,
> based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.
>
>
> Mixed opinions were expressed on this proposal.
>
> Some participants were against the entire proposal. OTOH, there were
> some who supported the need to remove needs based justification within
> the APNIC region, while against justifying 50% use of transfer block
> within 5 years.
>
> Below are details of different opinions expressed.
>
> Concerns/Opposing comments:
> * Strong concern expressed over impact on the transfer with ARIN region.
> If transfer with ARIN will not be allowed by removing needs based
> criteria, cannot support this proposal.(*)
>
> (*) Additional Note:
> It is acknowledged that RIPE region transfer with ARIN with the same
> criteria as prop-118. It should resolve this concern if there is an
> explicit confirmation from ARIN that the same approach will be
> applicable to APNIC region

The whole idea is indeed to keep the compatibility working with ARIN.

>
> * IP address should be distributed to those who need it, therefore
> against removing needs based criteria
>

Having a justification based evaluation in transfer does unfortunately
not help the ones who need IP address but have no money.
Those with money do not transfer unless they have a need for that
space, it is a costly and lengthy process.
That is the situation at the moment.

The need base evaluation is an administrative hurdle, it does not
ensures fair re-distribution of address space.
This policy is trying to remove that step from the process.

> * Justifying 50% use within 5 years do not seem like meaningful
> criteria. It is hard for applicants to speculate the needs for 5 years
> (too long ahead) and it is also hard to evaluate the application. It
> may not be a meaningful check despite the time and effort it takes for
> both applicant and registry.
>

Plans for the coming 5 years, if you today make a transfer based on a
hard deployment plan for the coming 12 months, you can still justify
your transfer with that.
If you happen to find larger amount than your needs for the coming 12
months, you can justify with plans for up to 5 years.
It is mainly to remain compatible with ARIN, if they ever drop those
requirements, then it is not applied anymore.

> * Concern expressed over abuse in the use of address space if both
> this proposal and prop-119 are adopted
>

What type of abuse?

>
> Supportive Comment:
> * If the role of registry is to be a record keeper in transfers of
> resources, and both the source and recipient both agree, we can remove
> needs based criteria
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Satoru Tsurumaki
> Policy Working Group
> Japan Open Policy Forum
>
> 2017-08-09 15:13 GMT+09:00 chku :
>> Dear SIG members
>>
>> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at
>> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
>>
>> 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 September
>> 2017.
>>
>> Information about the proposal is available from:
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
>>
>> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>>
>>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>>  - 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?
>>
>> Please find the text of the proposal below.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Proposer:   David Hilario
>> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net
>>
>>
>> 1. Problem statement
>> ---
>>
>> Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the
>> recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend
>> to transfer.
>>
>> Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to
>> enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming
>> from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect
>> the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
>>
>>
>> 2. Objective of policy change
>> ---
>>
>> Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
>> Ease some administration on APNIC staff.
>>
>>
>> 3. Situation in other regions
>> ---
>>
>> RIPE regi

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

[Satoru Tsurumaki]

Dear Colleagues,


I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan.

I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-118,
based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.


Mixed opinions were expressed on this proposal.

Some participants were against the entire proposal. OTOH, there were
some who supported the need to remove needs based justification within
the APNIC region, while against justifying 50% use of transfer block
within 5 years.

Below are details of different opinions expressed.

Concerns/Opposing comments:
* Strong concern expressed over impact on the transfer with ARIN region.
If transfer with ARIN will not be allowed by removing needs based
criteria, cannot support this proposal.(*)

(*) Additional Note:
It is acknowledged that RIPE region transfer with ARIN with the same
criteria as prop-118. It should resolve this concern if there is an
explicit confirmation from ARIN that the same approach will be
applicable to APNIC region

* IP address should be distributed to those who need it, therefore
against removing needs based criteria

* Justifying 50% use within 5 years do not seem like meaningful
criteria. It is hard for applicants to speculate the needs for 5 years
(too long ahead) and it is also hard to evaluate the application. It
may not be a meaningful check despite the time and effort it takes for
both applicant and registry.

* Concern expressed over abuse in the use of address space if both
this proposal and prop-119 are adopted


Supportive Comment:
* If the role of registry is to be a record keeper in transfers of
resources, and both the source and recipient both agree, we can remove
needs based criteria


Best Regards,


Satoru Tsurumaki
Policy Working Group
Japan Open Policy Forum

2017-08-09 15:13 GMT+09:00 chku :
> Dear SIG members
>
> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at
> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
>
> 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 September
> 2017.
>
> Information about the proposal is available from:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
>
> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>
>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>  - 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?
>
> Please find the text of the proposal below.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
> ---
>
> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
>
> ---
>
> Proposer:   David Hilario
> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
> ---
>
> Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the
> recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend
> to transfer.
>
> Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to
> enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming
> from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect
> the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> ---
>
> Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
> Ease some administration on APNIC staff.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> ---
>
> RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first
> allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their
> intended use of the resources .
>
> ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.
>
> AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource
> request from AFRINIC based on needs.
>
> LACNIC, no transfers, need based request.
>
> Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer
> policies,  ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy
> from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE
> region.
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
>
> Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility:
>
>  - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its
>service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating
>to transfers within its service region.
>
>  - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to
>have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the
>APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within
>5 years.
>
> source:
> https://www.rip

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

[David Hilario]

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-118-v001: No 
> need policy in APNIC region.
>
> APNIC remains neutral and objective about the outcome of this discussion and 
> only requires clarification to ensure correct implementation, should the 
> proposal reach consensus.
>
> These questions refer to the first bullet point in Section 4 'Proposed policy 
> solution'.
>
> - In that bullet point; "to its service region" seems to refer to recipients 
> of inter-region transfers. Can you be specific about which transfers this 
> proposal affects? Do you intend for the policy to also apply to transfers 
> within the regional, including those between APNIC and NIR account holders?
>


As in any transfer handled by APNIC.
If the recipient is handled by APNIC, APNIC will not ask for detailed
addressing plan and justification plan.
If the recipient is handled by another RIR or NIR, APNIC will not ask
for detailed addressing plan and justification plan.

Unless it is required to do so to comply with the other offering
registry's policies.

> - That bullet point requires transfers to "comply with the policies relating 
> to transfers within its service region". Which region are you referring to? 
> The APNIC region, or the counterpart region in an inter-RIR transfer? I think 
> I understand your intention, but the current text seems to require transfers 
> to comply with existing policy.
>

APNIC region.
Basically, that the recipient is able to receive address space under
the current APNIC policies, recipient is representing a legal entity
that is having a membership with APNIC or an NIR.


> We would appreciate your clarification.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
>
> ___
> Adam Gosling
> Senior Internet Policy Analyst, APNIC
> e: a...@apnic.net
> p: +61 7 3858 3142
> m: +61 421 456 243
> www.apnic.net
> ___
>
> Join the conversation:   https://blog.apnic.net/
> ___
>
>
>
> On 24/8/17, 13:57, "sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of David 
> Hilario"  d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net> wrote:
>
> 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 burden in the process.
>
> We tend to amass a lot of procedures and policies that stick around
> simply because "that's how we always have done it".
> Over time things become just a bit anachronistic.
>
> Need base was intended for the purpose of slowing the exhaustion of
> the global IP pool, while we prepare for the replacement protocol...
> and somehow we submitted that one to stricter distribution from day
> one and it is currently still trying to recover.
>
> Need demonstration was never intended to prevent IPv4 holders from
> exchanging IPs between each other, keeping the need based purpose on
> transfers is actually difficult to justify.
>
> Prevent speculators and hoarders?
> Organisations with large pockets can do this already, need base can
> justify almost any sizes in the world of VPS.
>
> We are only restricting smaller organisations willing to acquire
> resources in order try to have enough IPv4 space to cover their future
> needs based on what they can afford today.
> While larger organisations have no problem forking out large amount of
> money and can justify any sizes really.
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo  wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
>
> Good news they that they were caught.
>
> >> Recipient could not demonstrate needs:   1
>
> Interesting number.
> Was it a "could not demonstrate any need?", or "a specific need for a
> specific transfer size?"
> I would guess it is the second option, specific need for specific 
> transfer size.
>
> >> Recipient did not accept transfer:   6
>
> That category is odd, I know APNIC cannot give details of individual
> case, but why would a recipient be rejecting a transfer that they
> somehow initiated to begin with.
>
> >> Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
>
> Removing the need base in transfer would even simplify those, you can
> do an M&A provide lots of sensi

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

[Adam Gosling]

Dear David,

The APNIC Secretariat is reviewing the policy proposals under discussion and 
seeks clarification to better understand the intention of prop-118-v001: No 
need policy in APNIC region.

APNIC remains neutral and objective about the outcome of this discussion and 
only requires clarification to ensure correct implementation, should the 
proposal reach consensus.

These questions refer to the first bullet point in Section 4 'Proposed policy 
solution'.

- In that bullet point; "to its service region" seems to refer to recipients of 
inter-region transfers. Can you be specific about which transfers this proposal 
affects? Do you intend for the policy to also apply to transfers within the 
regional, including those between APNIC and NIR account holders?

- That bullet point requires transfers to "comply with the policies relating to 
transfers within its service region". Which region are you referring to? The 
APNIC region, or the counterpart region in an inter-RIR transfer? I think I 
understand your intention, but the current text seems to require transfers to 
comply with existing policy.

We would appreciate your clarification.

Regards,

Adam

___
Adam Gosling
Senior Internet Policy Analyst, APNIC
e: a...@apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3142
m: +61 421 456 243
www.apnic.net
___
 
Join the conversation:   https://blog.apnic.net/
___
 
 

On 24/8/17, 13:57, "sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of David 
Hilario"  wrote:

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 burden in the process.

We tend to amass a lot of procedures and policies that stick around
simply because "that's how we always have done it".
Over time things become just a bit anachronistic.

Need base was intended for the purpose of slowing the exhaustion of
the global IP pool, while we prepare for the replacement protocol...
and somehow we submitted that one to stricter distribution from day
one and it is currently still trying to recover.

Need demonstration was never intended to prevent IPv4 holders from
exchanging IPs between each other, keeping the need based purpose on
transfers is actually difficult to justify.

Prevent speculators and hoarders?
Organisations with large pockets can do this already, need base can
justify almost any sizes in the world of VPS.

We are only restricting smaller organisations willing to acquire
resources in order try to have enough IPv4 space to cover their future
needs based on what they can afford today.
While larger organisations have no problem forking out large amount of
money and can justify any sizes really.


>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo  wrote:
>>
>> 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

Good news they that they were caught.

>> Recipient could not demonstrate needs:   1

Interesting number.
Was it a "could not demonstrate any need?", or "a specific need for a
specific transfer size?"
I would guess it is the second option, specific need for specific transfer 
size.

>> Recipient did not accept transfer:   6

That category is odd, I know APNIC cannot give details of individual
case, but why would a recipient be rejecting a transfer that they
somehow initiated to begin with.

>> Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23

Removing the need base in transfer would even simplify those, you can
do an M&A provide lots of sensitive confidential information to a
third party, or simply do a transfer of the resources.

Anyone who has been involved in an M&A would know that it involves an
enormous amount of work and lots of extremely sensitive information
that often is not really appropriate to share with any external
parties.

>> No response from member:30
>> Member requested to cancel transfer:33
>>

You still have 63 cancelled transfers for whatever reason, if that is
due to the administrative burden put on the offering and receiving
party, it is then a big waste of time for all involved, LIRs and RIR.
If the "no need base" can help to lower the amount of cases that are
simply given up, then the policy would have had an impac

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

[David Hilario]

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 burden in the process.

We tend to amass a lot of procedures and policies that stick around
simply because "that's how we always have done it".
Over time things become just a bit anachronistic.

Need base was intended for the purpose of slowing the exhaustion of
the global IP pool, while we prepare for the replacement protocol...
and somehow we submitted that one to stricter distribution from day
one and it is currently still trying to recover.

Need demonstration was never intended to prevent IPv4 holders from
exchanging IPs between each other, keeping the need based purpose on
transfers is actually difficult to justify.

Prevent speculators and hoarders?
Organisations with large pockets can do this already, need base can
justify almost any sizes in the world of VPS.

We are only restricting smaller organisations willing to acquire
resources in order try to have enough IPv4 space to cover their future
needs based on what they can afford today.
While larger organisations have no problem forking out large amount of
money and can justify any sizes really.


>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo  wrote:
>>
>> 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

Good news they that they were caught.

>> Recipient could not demonstrate needs:   1

Interesting number.
Was it a "could not demonstrate any need?", or "a specific need for a
specific transfer size?"
I would guess it is the second option, specific need for specific transfer size.

>> Recipient did not accept transfer:   6

That category is odd, I know APNIC cannot give details of individual
case, but why would a recipient be rejecting a transfer that they
somehow initiated to begin with.

>> Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23

Removing the need base in transfer would even simplify those, you can
do an M&A provide lots of sensitive confidential information to a
third party, or simply do a transfer of the resources.

Anyone who has been involved in an M&A would know that it involves an
enormous amount of work and lots of extremely sensitive information
that often is not really appropriate to share with any external
parties.

>> No response from member:30
>> Member requested to cancel transfer:33
>>

You still have 63 cancelled transfers for whatever reason, if that is
due to the administrative burden put on the offering and receiving
party, it is then a big waste of time for all involved, LIRs and RIR.
If the "no need base" can help to lower the amount of cases that are
simply given up, then the policy would have had an impact.

You also have non quantifiables, such as "Requested pre-approval
evaluation", got /19 pre-approved but was aiming for /18 or higher.

So the Data is not really demonstrating the futility of the proposal,
just showing there are issues with the current system and some
tweaking of the current policies is needed.

>> As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part
>> of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
>>
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>> On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
>> > Hi Aftab,
>> >
>> > For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15
>> > August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
>> > On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to
>> > complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a
>> > correspondence within two working days.
>> >
>> > We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as
>> > soon as I have the information.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > George
>> >
>> >
>> > On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>> >> Dear APNIC Sec,
>> >>
>> >> Can you share some stats:
>> >>
>> >> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
>> >> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
>> >> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
>> >> - How long does it take to process a transfer request?
>> >> - Does it create any administrative burden?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku > >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear SIG members
>> >>
>> >> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was
>> >> discussed at
>> >> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> September
>> >> 2017.
>> >>
>> >> Information abou

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

[David Hilario]

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 until
the next recipient is found and approved.


> (2) If there are no need policy applied , can it help the un-routed IP
> address utilization %  ?
>

Yes, It will make it simpler to get the IPs from being dormant to an active
network that has plans for them.


> (3) The recipient request transfer does it mean they have real demend for
> IPv4 address ?
>

Yes, if anyone is ready to pay for space, they have a need behind it.
I have seen mentions of speculators many times, but the only demonstrated
IPv4 speculation happening, is actually only happening at new membership
level at the RIRs.
Where people open new LIRs for the sole purpose of transferring later.

But from the IPv4 transfers of "old" space, I have never heard of
speculators.
A large cloud provider or country wide ISP/mobile operator can easily
justify any given amount of space anyways, the need based transfer policy
only affects smaller networks.



> (4) Can this "no need policy"  help to re-use/recycle the old IP address
> / legacy IP address to the new owner?
>

Yes, making it simpler and removing a whole layer of doubt when approaching
a potential transfer deal.
offering parties and receiving parties have so much to arrange internally,
now, when you need to explain to your finance director that you need x
amount of dollars ear marked to buy new IP space but that the deal will
only go through if the RIR approves it due to evaluation of network
requirements

Most finance people and managers do not like to hear about policies, they
want to know "when", not "if".
That is a simple reality.



> (5) Saving a lot of APNIC work load ? HR ?
>
>
Yes, APNIC's staff will be handling this from a pure contractual agreement
point of view, no evaluation of technical needs, so a big part of the work
put in transfers will be diminished.


> Thank you very much !
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Ernest Tse
> Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.
> // Web: http://www.pacswitch.com
> // Tel:  +852-21570550 <+852%202157%200550>
> //Mobile: +852-62536678 <+852%206253%206678>
> //Skype: codesixs
>

Regards,
David Hilario

>
> On Wed, 23/08/2017 15.34, Aftab Siddiqui  wrote:
>
> Thanks George for the details.
>
> So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo  wrote:
>
>> 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
>> Recipient did not accept transfer:   6
>> Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
>> No response from member:30
>> Member requested to cancel transfer:33
>>
>> As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part
>> of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
>>
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>> On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
>> > Hi Aftab,
>> >
>> > For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15
>> > August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
>> > On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to
>> > complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a
>> > correspondence within two working days.
>> >
>> > We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as
>> > soon as I have the information.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > George
>> >
>> >
>> > On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>> >> Dear APNIC Sec,
>> >>
>> >> Can you share some stats:
>> >>
>> >> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
>> >> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
>> >> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
>> >> - How long does it take to process a transfer request?
>> >> - Does it create any administrative burden?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku > >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear SIG members
>> >>
>> >> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was
>> >> discussed at
>> >> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> September
>> >> 2017.
>> >>
>> >> Information about the proposal is available from:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
>> 

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

[Ernest Tse]

​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 real demend for IPv4 
address ?

(4) Can this "no need policy"  help to re-use/recycle the old IP address / 
legacy IP address to the new owner?


(5) Saving a lot of APNIC work load ? HR ?




Thank you very much !








Best Regards,













Ernest Tse

Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.

// Web: 
https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=xF2otKml8FKK0iLyO1O8hgJEEKE0n4lX3qwSddKMZq8-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpXOU0MXB1M8x3Zyxddwnmd-2BJFGTup-2Fm-2FOBCBruX94EjntWXtsEjJB4S8EdcySKYTpJ48CoZLq5KqT-2FeAUG5aqHfWtwj-2BDx4lLNAOEpp-2BYKkWuiBXzR9SBNd9RdFEf0EV7MCKUV4vvEF6KF0MBajG87xlOsopovalcoMYYKUJ9L9tg-3D-3D

// Tel:  +852-21570550

//Mobile: +852-62536678


//Skype: codesixs








On Wed, 23/08/2017 15.34, Aftab Siddiqui  wrote:
> 
Thanks George for the details.

> 

So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist. 


> 


> 

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo  wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
Recipient did not accept transfer:   6
> 
Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
> 
No response from member:30
> 
Member requested to cancel transfer:33
> 

> 
As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part
> 
of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
> 

> 

> 
George
> 

> 

> 
On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
> 
> Hi Aftab,
> 
>
> 
> For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15
> 
> August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
> 
> On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to
> 
> complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a
> 
> correspondence within two working days.
> 
>
> 
> We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as
> 
> soon as I have the information.
> 
>
> 
> thanks,
> 
>
> 
> George
> 
>
> 
>
> 
> On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> 
>> Dear APNIC Sec,
> 
>>
> 
>> Can you share some stats:
> 
>>
> 
>> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
> 
>> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
> 
>> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
> 
>> - How long does it take to process a transfer request?
> 
>> - Does it create any administrative burden?
> 
>>
> 
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku  
>> > wrote:
> 
>>
> 
>> Dear SIG members
> 
>>
> 
>> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was
> 
>> discussed at
> 
>> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
> 
>>
> 
>> 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
> 
>> September
> 
>> 2017.
> 
>>
> 
>> Information about the proposal is available from:
> 
>>
> 
>> 
>> https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=xF2otKml8FKK0iLyO1O8huUrPPtUbHhO65cb-2BIfOx1yQjk8JFqaVBIhGSNZmoA60U12-2BFRY8sOsUAtEqjBQpgg-3D-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpXOU0MXB1M8x3Zyxddwnmd-2BpL6lHwdvvEHjwxb8xCJXzq7RGRCbTCLN2p33Q-2FrUVHG-2BmMkPeGf04sMeiEhw-2BR7Dby4ndAYqn5CTiPe8m0ipInm9O1YGN6QY2Mfktr2H1T1I18gSL90nmzW0KoYtJfU-2Fve-2F1rGWi87-2BNtfqN1t72zA-3D-3D
> 
>>
> 
>> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
> 
>>
> 
>>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
> 
>>  - 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?
> 
>>
> 
>> Please find the text of the proposal below.
> 
>>
> 
>> Kind Regards,
> 
>>
> 
>> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> 
>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
>> ---
> 
>>
> 
>> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
> 
>>
> 
>> ---
> 
>>
> 
>> Proposer:   David Hilario
> 
>> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net
> 
>> 
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
>> 1. Problem statement
> 
>> ---
> 
>>
> 
>> Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC
> 
>> region, the
> 
>> recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they
> 
>> intend
> 
>> to t

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

[Lu Heng]

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 administrative burden for both
members as well as APNIC staff. If a need test is needed to make sure that
space is fully utilized, then we spend 800 emails which would only be found
out to be less than 1% of request that will fail such test. In this sense
why do we need such a test in the first place?





On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 16:08 Aftab Siddiqui 
wrote:

> *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 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
>>> 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 George for the details.
>
> So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo  wrote:
>
>> 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
>> Recipient did not accept transfer:   6
>> Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
>> No response from member:30
>> Member requested to cancel transfer:33
>>
>> As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just
>> part
>> of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
>>
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>> On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
>> > Hi Aftab,
>> >
>> > For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of
>> 15
>> > August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
>> > On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to
>> > complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a
>> > correspondence within two working days.
>> >
>> > We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to
>> you as
>> > soon as I have the information.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > George
>> >
>> >
>> > On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>> >> Dear APNIC Sec,
>> >>
>> >> Can you share some stats:
>> >>
>> >> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
>> >> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
>> >> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
>> >> - How long does it take to process a transfer request?
>> >> - Does it create any administrative burden?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku > >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear SIG members
>> >>
>> >> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was
>> >> discussed at
>> >> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> September
>> >> 2017.
>> >>
>> >> Information about the proposal is available from:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
>> >>
>> >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>> >>
>> >>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>> >>  - 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?
>> >>
>> >> Please find the text of the proposal below.
>> >>
>> >> Kind Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>> >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> Proposer:   David Hilario
>> >> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net
>> >> 

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

[Aftab Siddiqui]

*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 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 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 George for the details.

 So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.


 On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo  wrote:

> 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
> Recipient did not accept transfer:   6
> Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
> No response from member:30
> Member requested to cancel transfer:33
>
> As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part
> of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
>
>
> George
>
>
> On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
> > Hi Aftab,
> >
> > For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15
> > August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
> > On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to
> > complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a
> > correspondence within two working days.
> >
> > We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to
> you as
> > soon as I have the information.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> > On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> >> Dear APNIC Sec,
> >>
> >> Can you share some stats:
> >>
> >> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
> >> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
> >> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
> >> - How long does it take to process a transfer request?
> >> - Does it create any administrative burden?
> >>
> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear SIG members
> >>
> >> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was
> >> discussed at
> >> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
> >>
> >> 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
> >> September
> >> 2017.
> >>
> >> Information about the proposal is available from:
> >>
> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
> >>
> >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
> >>
> >>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
> >>  - 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?
> >>
> >> Please find the text of the proposal below.
> >>
> >> Kind Regards,
> >>
> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Proposer:   David Hilario
> >> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Problem statement
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC
> >> region, the
> >> recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space
> they
> >> intend
> >> to transfer.
> >>
> >> Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in
> ordcer to
> >> enable further growth in their network, since the space is not
> coming
> >> from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to
> >> protect
> >> the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. Objective of policy change
> >> -

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

[Lu Heng]

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 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 George for the details.
>>>
>>> So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo  wrote:
>>>
 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
 Recipient did not accept transfer:   6
 Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
 No response from member:30
 Member requested to cancel transfer:33

 As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part
 of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.


 George


 On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
 > Hi Aftab,
 >
 > For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15
 > August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
 > On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to
 > complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a
 > correspondence within two working days.
 >
 > We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you
 as
 > soon as I have the information.
 >
 > thanks,
 >
 > George
 >
 >
 > On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
 >> Dear APNIC Sec,
 >>
 >> Can you share some stats:
 >>
 >> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
 >> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
 >> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
 >> - How long does it take to process a transfer request?
 >> - Does it create any administrative burden?
 >>
 >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku >>> >> > wrote:
 >>
 >> Dear SIG members
 >>
 >> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was
 >> discussed at
 >> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
 >>
 >> 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
 >> September
 >> 2017.
 >>
 >> Information about the proposal is available from:
 >>
 >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
 >>
 >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
 >>
 >>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
 >>  - 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?
 >>
 >> Please find the text of the proposal below.
 >>
 >> Kind Regards,
 >>
 >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
 >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
 >>
 >>
 >> ---
 >>
 >> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
 >>
 >> ---
 >>
 >> Proposer:   David Hilario
 >> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net
 >> 
 >>
 >>
 >> 1. Problem statement
 >> ---
 >>
 >> Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC
 >> region, the
 >> recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they
 >> intend
 >> to transfer.
 >>
 >> Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in
 ordcer to
 >> enable further growth in their network, since the space is not
 coming
 >> from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to
 >> protect
 >> the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
 >>
 >>
 >> 2. Objective of policy change
 >> ---
 >>
 >> Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
 >> Ease some administration on APNIC staff.
 >>
 >>
 >> 3. Situation in other regions
 >> ---
 >>
 >> RIPE region has

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

[Aftab Siddiqui]

>
> 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 George for the details.
>>
>> So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo  wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> Recipient did not accept transfer:   6
>>> Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
>>> No response from member:30
>>> Member requested to cancel transfer:33
>>>
>>> As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part
>>> of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
>>>
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
>>> > Hi Aftab,
>>> >
>>> > For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15
>>> > August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
>>> > On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to
>>> > complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a
>>> > correspondence within two working days.
>>> >
>>> > We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you
>>> as
>>> > soon as I have the information.
>>> >
>>> > thanks,
>>> >
>>> > George
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>>> >> Dear APNIC Sec,
>>> >>
>>> >> Can you share some stats:
>>> >>
>>> >> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
>>> >> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
>>> >> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
>>> >> - How long does it take to process a transfer request?
>>> >> - Does it create any administrative burden?
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku >> >> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Dear SIG members
>>> >>
>>> >> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was
>>> >> discussed at
>>> >> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
>>> >>
>>> >> 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
>>> >> September
>>> >> 2017.
>>> >>
>>> >> Information about the proposal is available from:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
>>> >>
>>> >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>>> >>
>>> >>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>>> >>  - 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?
>>> >>
>>> >> Please find the text of the proposal below.
>>> >>
>>> >> Kind Regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>>> >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ---
>>> >>
>>> >> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
>>> >>
>>> >> ---
>>> >>
>>> >> Proposer:   David Hilario
>>> >> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net
>>> >> 
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. Problem statement
>>> >> ---
>>> >>
>>> >> Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC
>>> >> region, the
>>> >> recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they
>>> >> intend
>>> >> to transfer.
>>> >>
>>> >> Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer
>>> to
>>> >> enable further growth in their network, since the space is not
>>> coming
>>> >> from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to
>>> >> protect
>>> >> the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2. Objective of policy change
>>> >> ---
>>> >>
>>> >> Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
>>> >> Ease some administration on APNIC staff.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 3. Situation in other regions
>>> >> ---
>>> >>
>>> >> RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for
>>> first
>>> >> allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate
>>> >> their
>>> >> intended use of the resources .
>>> >>
>>> >> ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.
>>> 

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

[Lu Heng]

Hi Aftab:

I don't think George's data can leads your conclusion.



On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 15:35 Aftab Siddiqui 
wrote:

> Thanks George for the details.
>
> So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo  wrote:
>
>> 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
>> Recipient did not accept transfer:   6
>> Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
>> No response from member:30
>> Member requested to cancel transfer:33
>>
>> As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part
>> of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
>>
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>> On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
>> > Hi Aftab,
>> >
>> > For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15
>> > August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
>> > On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to
>> > complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a
>> > correspondence within two working days.
>> >
>> > We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as
>> > soon as I have the information.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > George
>> >
>> >
>> > On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>> >> Dear APNIC Sec,
>> >>
>> >> Can you share some stats:
>> >>
>> >> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
>> >> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
>> >> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
>> >> - How long does it take to process a transfer request?
>> >> - Does it create any administrative burden?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku > >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear SIG members
>> >>
>> >> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was
>> >> discussed at
>> >> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> September
>> >> 2017.
>> >>
>> >> Information about the proposal is available from:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
>> >>
>> >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>> >>
>> >>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>> >>  - 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?
>> >>
>> >> Please find the text of the proposal below.
>> >>
>> >> Kind Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>> >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> Proposer:   David Hilario
>> >> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net
>> >> 
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 1. Problem statement
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC
>> >> region, the
>> >> recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they
>> >> intend
>> >> to transfer.
>> >>
>> >> Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer
>> to
>> >> enable further growth in their network, since the space is not
>> coming
>> >> from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to
>> >> protect
>> >> the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2. Objective of policy change
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
>> >> Ease some administration on APNIC staff.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 3. Situation in other regions
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for
>> first
>> >> allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate
>> >> their
>> >> intended use of the resources .
>> >>
>> >> ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.
>> >>
>> >> AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and
>> resource
>> >> request from AFRINIC based on needs.
>> >>
>> >> LACNIC, no transfers, need based request.
>> >>
>> >> Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR
>> transfer
>>

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

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Thanks George for the details.

So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.


On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo  wrote:

> 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
> Recipient did not accept transfer:   6
> Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
> No response from member:30
> Member requested to cancel transfer:33
>
> As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part
> of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
>
>
> George
>
>
> On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
> > Hi Aftab,
> >
> > For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15
> > August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
> > On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to
> > complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a
> > correspondence within two working days.
> >
> > We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as
> > soon as I have the information.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> > On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> >> Dear APNIC Sec,
> >>
> >> Can you share some stats:
> >>
> >> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
> >> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
> >> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
> >> - How long does it take to process a transfer request?
> >> - Does it create any administrative burden?
> >>
> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear SIG members
> >>
> >> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was
> >> discussed at
> >> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
> >>
> >> 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
> >> September
> >> 2017.
> >>
> >> Information about the proposal is available from:
> >>
> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
> >>
> >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
> >>
> >>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
> >>  - 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?
> >>
> >> Please find the text of the proposal below.
> >>
> >> Kind Regards,
> >>
> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Proposer:   David Hilario
> >> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Problem statement
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC
> >> region, the
> >> recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they
> >> intend
> >> to transfer.
> >>
> >> Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to
> >> enable further growth in their network, since the space is not
> coming
> >> from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to
> >> protect
> >> the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. Objective of policy change
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
> >> Ease some administration on APNIC staff.
> >>
> >>
> >> 3. Situation in other regions
> >> ---
> >>
> >> RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first
> >> allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate
> >> their
> >> intended use of the resources .
> >>
> >> ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.
> >>
> >> AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and
> resource
> >> request from AFRINIC based on needs.
> >>
> >> LACNIC, no transfers, need based request.
> >>
> >> Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer
> >> policies,  ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy
> >> from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to
> >> RIPE
> >> region.
> >>
> >>
> >> 4. Proposed policy solution
> >> -

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

[George Kuo]

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
Recipient did not accept transfer:   6
Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
No response from member:30
Member requested to cancel transfer:33

As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part 
of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.



George


On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:

Hi Aftab,

For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15
August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to
complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a
correspondence within two working days.

We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as
soon as I have the information.

thanks,

George


On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:

Dear APNIC Sec,

Can you share some stats:

- How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
- How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
- How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
- How long does it take to process a transfer request?
- Does it create any administrative burden?

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku mailto:c...@twnic.net.tw>> wrote:

Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was
discussed at
APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.

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
September
2017.

Information about the proposal is available from:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118

You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:

 - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
 - 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?

Please find the text of the proposal below.

Kind Regards,

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


---

prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region

---

Proposer:   David Hilario
d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net



1. Problem statement
---

Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC
region, the
recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they
intend
to transfer.

Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to
enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming
from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to
protect
the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.


2. Objective of policy change
---

Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
Ease some administration on APNIC staff.


3. Situation in other regions
---

RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first
allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate
their
intended use of the resources .

ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.

AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource
request from AFRINIC based on needs.

LACNIC, no transfers, need based request.

Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer
policies,  ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy
from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to
RIPE
region.


4. Proposed policy solution
---

Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer
incompatibility:

 - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources
to its
   service region, provided that they comply with the policies
relating
   to transfers within its service region.

 - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving
region to
   have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the
   APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources
within
   5 years.

source:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644


5. Advantages / Disadvantages
---

Advantages:

 - Harmonis

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

[George Kuo]

Hi Aftab,

For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15 
August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to 
complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a 
correspondence within two working days.


We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as 
soon as I have the information.


thanks,

George


On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:

Dear APNIC Sec,

Can you share some stats:

- How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
- How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
- How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
- How long does it take to process a transfer request?
- Does it create any administrative burden?

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku mailto:c...@twnic.net.tw>> wrote:

Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at
APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.

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 September
2017.

Information about the proposal is available from:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118

You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:

 - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
 - 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?

Please find the text of the proposal below.

Kind Regards,

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


---

prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region

---

Proposer:   David Hilario
d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net



1. Problem statement
---

Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the
recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend
to transfer.

Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to
enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming
from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect
the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.


2. Objective of policy change
---

Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
Ease some administration on APNIC staff.


3. Situation in other regions
---

RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first
allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their
intended use of the resources .

ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.

AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource
request from AFRINIC based on needs.

LACNIC, no transfers, need based request.

Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer
policies,  ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy
from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE
region.


4. Proposed policy solution
---

Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility:

 - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its
   service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating
   to transfers within its service region.

 - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to
   have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the
   APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within
   5 years.

source:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644


5. Advantages / Disadvantages
---

Advantages:

 - Harmonisation with RIPE region.
 - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and between APNIC
   and RIPE.
 - maintains a compatibility with ARIN.
 - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected based on
   potentially badly documented needs.
 - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff.

Disadvantages:

none.


6. Impact on resource holders
---
None


7. References
---




___
Sig-policy-chair mailing

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

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Dear APNIC Sec,

Can you share some stats:

- How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
- How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
- How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
- How long does it take to process a transfer request?
- Does it create any administrative burden?

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku  wrote:

> Dear SIG members
>
> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at
> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
>
> 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 September
> 2017.
>
> Information about the proposal is available from:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
>
> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>
>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>  - 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?
>
> Please find the text of the proposal below.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
> ---
>
> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
>
> ---
>
> Proposer:   David Hilario
> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
> ---
>
> Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the
> recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend
> to transfer.
>
> Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to
> enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming
> from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect
> the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> ---
>
> Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
> Ease some administration on APNIC staff.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> ---
>
> RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first
> allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their
> intended use of the resources .
>
> ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.
>
> AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource
> request from AFRINIC based on needs.
>
> LACNIC, no transfers, need based request.
>
> Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer
> policies,  ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy
> from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE
> region.
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
>
> Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility:
>
>  - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its
>service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating
>to transfers within its service region.
>
>  - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to
>have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the
>APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within
>5 years.
>
> source:
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644
>
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> ---
>
> Advantages:
>
>  - Harmonisation with RIPE region.
>  - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and between APNIC
>and RIPE.
>  - maintains a compatibility with ARIN.
>  - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected based on
>potentially badly documented needs.
>  - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff.
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> none.
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
> ---
> None
>
>
> 7. References
> ---
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sig-policy-chair mailing list
> sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
> *  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

-- 
Best Wishes,

Aftab A. Siddiqui
*  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

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

[Ernest Tse]

​I support prop-1118.








Best Regards,













Ernest Tse












On Thu, 10/08/2017 03.17, Mike Burns  wrote:
> 
I support prop-118, but note that contrary to the proposal text, Lacnic has
> allowed intra-regional transfers since March 14, 2016.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike Burns
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
> [sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of chku
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 2:14 AM
> To: sig-policy 
> Subject: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region,
> to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG
> 
> Dear SIG members
> 
> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at
> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
> 
> 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 September 2017.
> 
> Information about the proposal is available from:
> 
> 
> https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=xF2otKml8FKK0iLyO1O8huUrPPtUbHhO65cb-2BIfOx1yQjk8JFqaVBIhGSNZmoA60U12-2BFRY8sOsUAtEqjBQpgg-3D-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpUcdMbqpjzCZWqOZ54xVfRdu-2BDKIREJQHfNvzlKUnHEnbcpXiAz1Z78qVcyYnRjp-2BK9LZDemT-2BQErpYrTsmBEdyqearem30WuE3uCT4GWbnc4n20dxae-2Fb1wO-2FxpaTmv8py3W4eoQ8KjXxUGBar-2B-2B-2FFpMVUycudEnJ22EEpW3ADxQ-3D-3D
> 
> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
> 
>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>  - 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?
> 
> Please find the text of the proposal below.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
> 
> ---
> 
> Proposer:   David Hilario
> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net
> 
> 
> 1. Problem statement
> ---
> 
> Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the
> recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend to
> transfer.
> 
> Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to enable
> further growth in their network, since the space is not coming from the free
> public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect the limited pool
> of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
> 
> 
> 2. Objective of policy change
> ---
> 
> Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
> Ease some administration on APNIC staff.
> 
> 
> 3. Situation in other regions
> ---
> 
> RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first
> allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their
> intended use of the resources .
> 
> ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.
> 
> AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource
> request from AFRINIC based on needs.
> 
> LACNIC, no transfers, need based request.
> 
> Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer
> policies,  ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy from
> the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE region.
> 
> 
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
> 
> Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility:
> 
>  - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its
>service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating
>to transfers within its service region.
> 
>  - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to
>have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the
>APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within
>5 years.
> 
> source:
> 
> https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=16bEysF9x2jUX1XY2ZMKUrALMsHil-2BpVmNTNd6yDOuFusAIW7wV7s3bVF4S4QfQhmE-2FurmywiubVNS9Y1KHJMw-3D-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpUcdMbqpjzCZWqOZ54xVfRdHe-2FGWYzZflHk0NQ6fbIU32C4y0tJXQIYB2cnDtp6BnA67qinJnWeNiKf9St7-2Fz3g1IEkByuqbqnrupxsTXhGOFfsQSRb1KHWLJZAw5rNYuS5YXvrzrpKzi77zdzSHw6Dk4rLR4GZBseTy9iNgkuPFg-3D-3D
> 
> 
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> ---
>

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

[Mike Burns]

I support prop-118, but note that contrary to the proposal text, Lacnic has
allowed intra-regional transfers since March 14, 2016.

Regards,
Mike Burns


-Original Message-
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of chku
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 2:14 AM
To: sig-policy 
Subject: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region,
to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at
APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.

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 September 2017.

Information about the proposal is available from:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118

You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:

 - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
 - 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?

Please find the text of the proposal below.

Kind Regards,

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


---

prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region

---

Proposer:   David Hilario
d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net


1. Problem statement
---

Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the
recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend to
transfer.

Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to enable
further growth in their network, since the space is not coming from the free
public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect the limited pool
of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.


2. Objective of policy change
---

Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
Ease some administration on APNIC staff.


3. Situation in other regions
---

RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first
allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their
intended use of the resources .

ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.

AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource
request from AFRINIC based on needs.

LACNIC, no transfers, need based request.

Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer
policies,  ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy from
the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE region.


4. Proposed policy solution
---

Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility:

 - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its
   service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating
   to transfers within its service region.

 - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to
   have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the
   APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within
   5 years.

source:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644


5. Advantages / Disadvantages
---

Advantages:

 - Harmonisation with RIPE region.
 - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and between APNIC
   and RIPE.
 - maintains a compatibility with ARIN.
 - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected based on
   potentially badly documented needs.
 - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff.

Disadvantages:

none.


6. Impact on resource holders
---
None


7. References
---




___
Sig-policy-chair mailing list
sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair

*  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

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

[chku]

Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at
APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.

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 September 
2017.

Information about the proposal is available from:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118

You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:

 - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
 - 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?

Please find the text of the proposal below.

Kind Regards,

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


---

prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region

---

Proposer:   David Hilario
d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net


1. Problem statement
---

Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the
recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend
to transfer.

Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to
enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming
from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect
the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.


2. Objective of policy change
---

Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
Ease some administration on APNIC staff.


3. Situation in other regions
---

RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first
allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their
intended use of the resources .

ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.

AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource
request from AFRINIC based on needs.

LACNIC, no transfers, need based request.

Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer
policies,  ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy
from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE
region.


4. Proposed policy solution
---

Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility:

 - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its
   service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating
   to transfers within its service region.

 - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to
   have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the
   APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within
   5 years.

source:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644


5. Advantages / Disadvantages
---

Advantages:

 - Harmonisation with RIPE region.
 - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and between APNIC
   and RIPE.
 - maintains a compatibility with ARIN.
 - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected based on
   potentially badly documented needs.
 - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff.

Disadvantages:

none.


6. Impact on resource holders
---
None


7. References
---




___
Sig-policy-chair mailing list
sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at
APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.

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 September 
2017.

Information about the proposal is available from:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118

You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:

 - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
 - 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?

Please find the text of the proposal below.

Kind Regards,

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


---

prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region

---

Proposer:   David Hilario
d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net


1. Problem statement
---

Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking p