Current policy of APNIC for transfer of number resources is complicated
and enforcement is also weak. This causes hoarding and underground
transfer of IP resources. Hence APNIC should consider simple system for
transfer of number resources from one entity to another.
It should either allow
-
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 08:29:45 +0000
> From: Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net>
> To: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net
Hi Skeeve and all,
Ahead of the upcoming policy SIG, I'd like to share more info about how
APNIC secretariat evaluates M & A requests. As part of our due diligence
check, we have the procedure to verify the
authenticity of the M & A request documentations received. Circumstances
where it's
* Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia>
> *Cc:* Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net>; mailman_SIG-policy <
> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> I
ic.nc>; sig-pol...@apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
We can agree to disagree.
This is, IMHO, the kind of speculation in 103/8 blocks that the policy
(original 2 year limit) was intended to target.
The expansion of this to a 5 year limit, wh
>> wrote:
>> Hi Aftab,
>>
>>
>>
>> The number of M transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011
>> to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Guangliang
>>
>> ==
>&g
gt;
>> The number of M transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April
>> 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Guangliang
>>
>> ======
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto
...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:40 AM
To: Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>
Cc: sig-pol...@apnic.net SIG List <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 I
m: Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com
> <mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM
> To: Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net <mailto:g...@apnic.net>>
> Cc: Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz <mailto:sanj...@dcs1.biz>>
5 April
>> 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Guangliang
>>
>> ==
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49
ot allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Guangliang
>
> =
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@
> lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta
> *Sen
I agree, but there needs to be some protection for APNIC on the resources
left.
But I think the APNIC EC can probably decide on the best way to evaluate
this themselves.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia)
Pte Ltd.
Email:
So define it better. This could be undertaken by the EC outside the scope
of policy IMHO.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia)
Pte Ltd.
Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve
Agreed. I do agree that there needs to be some protections to avoid abuse
of the last /8 resources, but, there seems to be a policy failure elsewhere
in APNIC in relation to the evaluation of M which is allowing abusive
transactions to occur.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The
I very much support this policy. A policy should not be retrospectively
applied otherwise anything any of us may do or plan to do can be considered
guaranteed, and I would see a case for requesting APNIC to return funds for
any services provided that have been negated by policy changes.
I also
uangliang
>>
>> ==
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM
>> *To:* Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net>
>> *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz>; mailman_SIG-policy
g...@apnic.net>
> *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz>; mailman_SIG-policy <
> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> Hi Guangliang,
>
> How ma
Hi Alex,
> 1. Problem statement
> ---
>
> Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
> the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
> 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from
Dear Proposer
I would like to clarify.
My understanding is:
Prop-116 will be subject to the 103/8 IPv4 address which allocated before
14 Sep 2017 and be transferred after this proposal will consensus.
It's mean that these address will be allowed to transfer "ONE-TIME".
Is it correct ?
Regards,
, Muhammad)
--
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:33:57 +0530
From: Rajesh Panwala <raj...@smartlinkindia.com>
To: Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz>
Cc: sig-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
policy
Message-
8 13:33:57 +0530
From: Rajesh Panwala <raj...@smartlinkindia.com>
To: Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz>
Cc: sig-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
policy
Message-ID:
<caftveg6qvzwz59-iz2zhbcamir0tttxzf5
I partially support the policy. For genuine M cases , there should not be
any restriction on transfer of resources. M activities are part and
parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala
For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
+91-9227886001
On Fri, Jan
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
>
> *Mike*
>
>
>
> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@
> lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier
> *Sent:* Friday, 26 January
...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Bertrand Cherrier
Sent: Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m.
To: sig-pol...@apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has
been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in
Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the
25 matches
Mail list logo
