Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[ABHISHEK MISHRA]

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 free transfer of number resources with facility for
registration with APNIC system to confirm transfers.   In such a
situation,  there would be free market for sale and purchase of number
resources and tendency for black marketing will be illuminated.   When all
the resources are exhausted, users will have the option to buy at higher
cost or switch to IPv6 system.

Alternatively APNIC should completely ban transfer of numbers between 
entities.  Any person who has number resources should have only two
options either to use it or surrender to APNIC resource pool.  No lateral
transfer should be permitted.  There should be no recognition of bilateral
transfer in the APNIC system and any person who transfers resources
directly to other party will do it at his own risk and if APNIC comes to
know about it should cancel those allocations.  All resources which are
received in APNIC resources pool should be allotted to waitlisted desirous
entities on first come first serve basis with due verification process.  A
committee under APNIC may be constituted to consider cases of exceptional
importance where out of turn allotment should be permitted.  Such cases
should be very small in number and should not ordinarily exceed 2% of
total allocation by APNIC in a year.  Such exceptions with recorded
reasons for such exceptions should be placed before the Board of APNIC
every year.


In addition APNIC should also enforce some verification requirements for
entities seeking the number resources to be enforced by selling entities. 
Ideally,  Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements as applicable for opening
a bank account should be made applicable for such purchases as well.


Regards,


*  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] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[yang...@126.com]

Dear sunny

  Thank you very much for your feedback.



Alex Yang
 
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Date: 2018-02-19 10:19
To: yang...@126.com; sig-policy
Subject: Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Hi Alex,
 
Here is the date you requested.
 
>  >1、How many invalid Whois contact reports received by
> APNIC in 2017？  Or  per month in average in 2017？
 
In 2017, we received a total of 3,915 reports of invalid contacts in
whois database. These reports included:
 
- Multiple reports for the same invalid whois contact
- Reports for invalid contacts associated with customer assignments
- Reports for unresponsive contacts (Email does not bounce but whois
contact does not respond)
- Network abuse activities reported incorrectly via invalid contact
report form
 
>  >2、How many delegations from the 103/8 ?
 
To date, we have made 13884 delegations from the 103/8 pool.
 
>  >3、How many m cases from 103/8 are adopted by apnic
> before the prop-116, and how many be prohibited after the policy?
 
The number of M transfers from 103/8 address block between 15 April
2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
 
Since the implementation of prop 116, APNIC has rejected 18 M transfer 
requests as they did not meet the policy criteria.
 
>  >4、How many  ranges from 103/8 have the transfer
> requirement but due to the prop-116, which are in the state of waiting?
 
We don't have this number as we don’t know how many of them wish to
transfer.
 
Regards
Sunny
APNIC Secretariat
 
On 19/02/2018 11:27 AM, yang...@126.com wrote:
> Hello Sig policy chairs,
> 
>  >Can I ask you some questions about :
>  >
>  >1、How many invalid Whois contact reports received by 
> APNIC in 2017？  Or  per month in average in 2017？
>  >2、How many delegations from the 103/8 ?
>  >3、How many m cases from 103/8 are adopted by apnic 
> before the prop-116, and how many be prohibited after the policy?
>  >4、How many  ranges from 103/8 have the transfer 
> requirement but due to the prop-116, which are in the state of waiting ?
> 
> 
> yang...@126.com
> 
> *From:* sig-policy-request <mailto:sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net>
> *Date:* 2018-02-01 16:29
> *To:* sig-policy <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* sig-policy Digest, Vol 165, Issue 11
> Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sig-policy-ow...@lists.apnic.net
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re:  prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>[SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] (Guangliang Pan)
> --
> 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>
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
> Message-ID:
> 
> <sg2pr04mb1613c481f707cc93440108d1c6...@sg2pr04mb1613.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Hello Owen,
> There is 1.86% of the delegations from 103/8 block have been
> transferred by M Out of that, only 5 ranges transferred more than
> once.
> There are 152 members acquired 103/8 ranges via M transfers. It is
> 1% of the total membership (includes members under NIRs). Out of
> that, 123 members received one range, 16 members received two ranges
> and 13 members received more two ranges.
> Kind regards,
> Guangliang
> ==
>     From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2018 3:00 AM
> To: 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 would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of
> the distributed portion of 103/8.
> I would be interested if staff can answer wha

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[George Kuo]

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 obvious to APNIC that the transaction is fraudulent or
fabricated, to the best of our knowledge, APNIC will reject the transfer
request and terminate membership as per the Membership agreement.

M & A can take many forms and it's difficult for APNIC to be the sole
arbitrator to judge the motivations behind and decide if it is in good
or bad faith.

thanks

George

On 1/2/18 2:42 am, Skeeve Stevens wrote:

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 Architect* - eintellego Networks
(Cambodia) Pte Ltd.
Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia
 ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia


Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
Twitter: eintellego 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve
 ; Expert360: Profile
 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises


On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala
> wrote:

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 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier
> wrote:

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
mailing list
before the meeting.

The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage
you to
express your views on the proposal:

 - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
 - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
   tell the community about your situation.
 - 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?

Information about this proposal is available at:

   http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123


Regards

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs

https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt


---

prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

---

Proposer:Alex Yang
 yang...@126.com 


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 103/8
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.

However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
Whois data.


2. Objective of policy change
---

To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.


3. Situation in other regions
---

No such situation in 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Skeeve Stevens]

With these statistics, I fail to see the problem that was being addressed
as opposed to the problem is now causes by limiting the way people do their
business.


...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

Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
<https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> wrote:

> Hello Owen,
>
>
>
> There is 1.86% of the delegations from 103/8 block have been transferred
> by M Out of that, only 5 ranges transferred more than once.
>
>
>
> There are 152 members acquired 103/8 ranges via M transfers. It is 1% of
> the total membership (includes members under NIRs). Out of that, 123
> members received one range, 16 members received two ranges and 13 members
> received more two ranges.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Guangliang
>
> ==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 February 2018 3:00 AM
> *To:* 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 would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the
> distributed portion of 103/8.
>
>
>
> I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued
> 103/8 resources have been subject
>
> to one or more M transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested
> in the number instances where
>
> the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).
>
>
>
> I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:
>
>
>
>   1.   Stand up shell entity
>
>   2.   Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain
> 103/8 block.
>
>   3.   Merge shell entity into parent entity and M
> transfer block into parent’s holdings.
>
>   4.   Lather, rinse, repeat.
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpolicy@
> eintellegonetworks.asia> wrote:
>
>
>
> This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been
> enshrined in policy.
>
>
>
> ...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
>
> Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
> Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>
>
> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
> <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
>
>
>
> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> 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
>
> ==
>
>
>
> *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 <
> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> Hi Guangliang,
>
> How many M were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to
> 14 Sep 2017.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Sanjeev,
>
>
>
> The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years
> count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations
> are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Guangliang
>
> =
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[Mike Burns]

“This is, IMHO, the kind of speculation in 103/8 blocks that the policy 
(original 2 year limit) was intended to target.”

 

Not to my thinking. The thing that was targeted by policy was the tapping of 
the free pool in order to then turn around and sell.  The problem foreseen was 
a recurrence of the RIPE problem, where new LIRs are spun up just to avail 
themselves of the pool reserved for new applicants.

 

In the case I mentioned, the buyer, who did not tap the pool but instead paid 
money, is now prevented from resale.

 

If the target of the policy is the protection of the remaining pool reserved 
for new entrants, preventing *prior* recipients from selling is missing that 
target, because the free pool is not affected.

 

That is why I could support a waiting period moving forward, as that will 
protect the pool as intended. I would concur with your 24 month period as being 
more reasonable.

 

Regards,

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:39 PM
To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com>
Cc: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia>; Bertrand 
Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.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, while excessive IMHO, seems to likely 
be community reaction to just this sort of behavior, so I have no problem with 
the result.

 

Owen

 

On Jan 31, 2018, at 09:06 , Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com 
<mailto:m...@iptrading.com> > wrote:

 

We brokered a sale of a 103 block when it was within policy to do so.

 

Now that buyer, who paid money for the block with the understanding that he 
could resell it, has had the situation changed to his detriment by the new 
restrictive policy.

 

I support the grandfathering-in of 103 blocks allocated prior to the recent 5 
year policy, allowing them to be resold but preventing those who receive 103 
blocks after the 5 year policy was implemented from reselling before 5 years.  
(Although  5 years is too long, IMO)

 

I support this policy.

 

 

 

From:  <mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> 
sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [ 
<mailto:sig-policy-boun...@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 < <mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> 
b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>
Cc:  <mailto:sig-pol...@apnic.net> sig-pol...@apnic.net SIG List < 
<mailto:sig-pol...@apnic.net> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

 

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 very much object to the 5 year period that snuck in at the last APNIC 
meeting. I was happy with 2 years, but 5 years is unreasonable.

 

I was going to make a submission to change this back to 2 years, but 
unfortunately, work got in the way and I did not get the submission in on time. 
Next meeting maybe.





...Skeeve

 

Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte 
Ltd.

Email:  <mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia> ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia 
; Web:  <http://eintellegonetworks.asia/> eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook:  <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> eintellegonetworks ; 
Twitter:  <https://twitter.com/eintellego> eintellego

LinkedIn:  <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> /in/skeeve ; Expert360:  
<https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> Profile ; Keybase:  
<https://keybase.io/skeeve> https://keybase.io/skeeve

 

Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

 

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Cherrier < 
<mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> wrote:

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 mailing list
before the meeting.

The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:

 - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
 - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencin

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 10:09 , Skeeve Stevens 
> <skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
> Of course, there is the possibility (probability) of this, but that would be 
> stupid as the costs of maintaining companies would exceed CGN or other 
> methods to alleviate the need.

Maintaining? Once you do the merge, there’s no need to maintain.

Standing up a shell company is pretty cheap and easy in most places. I’m sure 
there’s at least one country somewhere in the APNIC region where this is true. 
If there’s no stricture on M acquisitions of 103/8 space, not even a minimal 
time limit, then I would argue it’s pretty hard to distinguish this activity 
from “real M” on a policy basis. After all, a real company (albeit a shell 
company, this is very hard to detect) is applying for and receiving space and 
then “really” being “acquired” by the “independent” organization that spun it 
up in the first place. On paper it’s 100% legitimate normal business practice 
and it’s virtually impossible to distinguish this from (e.g. 3Com spinning off 
Palm and then later acquiring it, then spinning it off where it was eventually 
acquired by HP).

I agree that 5 years is way too long and exceeds the useful delay here, but I 
think that a 24 month waiting period after acquiring is not at all unreasonable.

Owen

> The issue here is that APNIC needs to be satisfied it is a real M, which 
> should not be that hard to do.
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte 
> Ltd.
> Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia <mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia> 
> ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia <http://eintellegonetworks.asia/>
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <>
> Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; 
> Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>
> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile 
> <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve 
> <https://keybase.io/skeeve>
> 
> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
> 
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com 
> <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
> I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the 
> distributed portion of 103/8.
> 
> I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8 
> resources have been subject
> to one or more M transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested in 
> the number instances where
> the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).
> 
> I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:
> 
>   1.  Stand up shell entity
>   2.  Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block.
>   3.  Merge shell entity into parent entity and M transfer block 
> into parent’s holdings.
>   4.  Lather, rinse, repeat.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens 
>> <skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia 
>> <mailto:skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia>> wrote:
>> 
>> This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been 
>> enshrined in policy.
>> 
>> 
>> ...Skeeve
>> 
>> Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) 
>> Pte Ltd.
>> Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia 
>> <mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia> ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia 
>> <http://eintellegonetworks.asia/>
>> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <>
>> Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; 
>> Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>
>> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile 
>> <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve 
>> <https://keybase.io/skeeve>
>> 
>> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
>> 
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net 
>> <mailto:g...@apnic.net>> 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
>> 
>> ==
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>] 
>> Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Skeeve Stevens]

Owen,

Of course, there is the possibility (probability) of this, but that would
be stupid as the costs of maintaining companies would exceed CGN or other
methods to alleviate the need.

The issue here is that APNIC needs to be satisfied it is a real M, which
should not be that hard to do.


...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

Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
<https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:

> I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the
> distributed portion of 103/8.
>
> I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued
> 103/8 resources have been subject
> to one or more M transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested
> in the number instances where
> the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).
>
> I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:
>
> 1. Stand up shell entity
> 2. Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block.
> 3. Merge shell entity into parent entity and M transfer block into
> parent’s holdings.
> 4. Lather, rinse, repeat.
>
> Owen
>
> On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpolicy@
> eintellegonetworks.asia> wrote:
>
> This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been
> enshrined in policy.
>
>
> ...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
> Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
> Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>
> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
> <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
>
> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> 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
>>
>> ======
>>
>>
>>
>> *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 <
>> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
>> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Guangliang,
>>
>> How many M were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to
>> 14 Sep 2017.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sanjeev,
>>
>>
>>
>> The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years
>> count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations
>> are not 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@lis
>> ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta
>> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM
>> *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>
>> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
>> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively".  People who
>> "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different
>> now.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was
>> sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the
>> rules were

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[Mike Burns]

We brokered a sale of a 103 block when it was within policy to do so.

 

Now that buyer, who paid money for the block with the understanding that he 
could resell it, has had the situation changed to his detriment by the new 
restrictive policy.

 

I support the grandfathering-in of 103 blocks allocated prior to the recent 5 
year policy, allowing them to be resold but preventing those who receive 103 
blocks after the 5 year policy was implemented from reselling before 5 years.  
(Although  5 years is too long, IMO)

 

I support this policy.

 

 

 

From: sig-policy-boun...@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 IPv4 transfer policy

 

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 very much object to the 5 year period that snuck in at the last APNIC 
meeting. I was happy with 2 years, but 5 years is unreasonable.

 

I was going to make a submission to change this back to 2 years, but 
unfortunately, work got in the way and I did not get the submission in on time. 
Next meeting maybe.





...Skeeve

 

Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte 
Ltd.

Email:  <mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia> ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia 
; Web:  <http://eintellegonetworks.asia/> eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks>  ; 
Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego> 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>  ; Expert360: Profile 
<https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9>  ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve

 

Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

 

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc 
<mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> > wrote:

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 mailing list
before the meeting.

The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:

 - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
 - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
   tell the community about your situation.
 - 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?

Information about this proposal is available at:

   http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123

Regards

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs

https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt 



---
 
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
 
---
 
Proposer:Alex Yang
 yang...@126.com <mailto:yang...@126.com> 
 
 
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 103/8 
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
 
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. 
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The 
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those 
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to 
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered, 
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC 
Whois data.
 
 
2. Objective of policy change
---
 
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
 
 
3. Situation in other regions
---
 
No such situation in other regions.
 
 
4. Proposed policy solution
---
 
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment” 
should only apply to those ranges

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Owen DeLong]

I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the 
distributed portion of 103/8.

I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8 
resources have been subject
to one or more M transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested in 
the number instances where
the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).

I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:

1.  Stand up shell entity
2.  Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block.
3.  Merge shell entity into parent entity and M transfer block 
into parent’s holdings.
4.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

Owen

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens 
> <skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia> wrote:
> 
> This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been 
> enshrined in policy.
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte 
> Ltd.
> Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia <mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia> 
> ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia <http://eintellegonetworks.asia/>
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <>
> Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; 
> Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>
> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile 
> <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve 
> <https://keybase.io/skeeve>
> 
> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
> 
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net 
> <mailto:g...@apnic.net>> 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
> 
> ==
> 
>  
> 
> From: 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>>; 
> mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net <mailto:sig-pol...@apnic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy 
> [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Guangliang,
> 
> How many M were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 
> Sep 2017.
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net 
> <mailto:g...@apnic.net>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sanjeev,
> 
>  
> 
> The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count 
> back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not 
> allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Guangliang
> 
> =
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
> <mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> 
> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
> <mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net>] On Behalf Of Sanjeev Gupta
> Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM
> To: Henderson Mike, Mr <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz 
> <mailto:michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>>
> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net <mailto:sig-pol...@apnic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy 
> [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
> 
>  
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively".  People who 
> "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different 
> now.
> 
>  
> 
> I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was 
> sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules 
> were changing.
> 
>  
> 
> APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sanjeev Gupta
> +65 98551208 <tel:+65%209855%201208>   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane 
> <http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane>
>  
> 
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr 
> <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz <mailto:michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>> wrote:
> 
> Not supported
> 
>  
> 
> The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
> 
> _______________
> 
> Disadvantages:
>  
> None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Skeeve Stevens]

I have multiple clients who are going through M of smaller ISPs and now
have resources they need to use but can't combine them under their
membership and have to maintain a legal company just to hold the resources.

This could cost a couple of thousand dollars per year in Australia for ASIC
fees, Annual Tax Returns and Accountant Fees.

I am considering advising clients to let the companies die, keep records of
an internal transfer of assets (resources), and point lawyers at APNIC if
they do not update the registry records.

In an M there is no need to justify the use of resources as they are
already using them and will continue to do so under the original (whatever
that is) justification. It is not the right of APNIC to interfere with a
business lawfully carrying on its operations and I think the courts will
agree. APNIC is a registry operator and record keeper. They are already
drifting from their chartered purpose too much in my opinion and should be
put back in their place.



...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

Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
<https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:08 PM, andrew khoo <andrew.k...@as136019.net>
wrote:

> we will vote to support this policy.
>
> as a practical example, the organisation i work for will be affected by
> this policy.
>
> the organisation (a mobile MVNO) acquired a business in 2016 with a /22
> from the 103/8 range with the intention of offering fixed line services.
>
> we are seeking to merge the purchased entity's /22 into our APNIC account.
>
> if we do not do this, the details in APNIC whois for the purchased entity
> will soon be no longer valid.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> 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
>>
>> ==
>>
>>
>>
>> *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 <
>> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
>> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Guangliang,
>>
>> How many M were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to
>> 14 Sep 2017.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sanjeev,
>>
>>
>>
>> The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years
>> count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations
>> are not 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@lis
>> ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta
>> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM
>> *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>
>> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
>> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively".  People who
>> "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different
>> now.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was
>> sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the
>> rules were changing.
>>
>>
>>
>> APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sanjeev Gupta
>> +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208>   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <
>

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Skeeve Stevens]

This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been
enshrined in policy.


...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

Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego>

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
<https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> 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
>
> ==
>
>
>
> *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 <
> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> Hi Guangliang,
>
> How many M were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to
> 14 Sep 2017.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Sanjeev,
>
>
>
> The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years
> count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations
> are not 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
> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM
> *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>
> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively".  People who
> "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different
> now.
>
>
>
> I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was
> sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the
> rules were changing.
>
>
>
> APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sanjeev Gupta
> +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208>   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <
> michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
>
> Not supported
>
>
>
> The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
>
> ___
>
> Disadvantages:
>
>
>
> None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer 
> IPv4 addresses in
>
> the final /8 block.
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 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 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 mailing list
> before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>tell the community about your situation.
>  - 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?
>
> Information about this proposal is available at:
>
>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>
> Regards
>
> Sumon, Bertr

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[Skeeve Stevens]

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: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
Twitter: eintellego 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile
 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Rajesh Panwala 
wrote:

> Dear Team,
>
> My submission is " All M cases should be excluded from denying the
> transfer."
>
> As M is routine business activity, there is no point barring transfer.
>
> regards,
>
> Rajesh Panwala
> For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
> +91-9227886001
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Sanjeev Gupta  wrote:
>
>> Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear
>> definition of "genuine".  It is unfair to them to expect that they
>> administer a rule which is not well defined.
>>
>> Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sanjeev Gupta
>> +65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala <
>> raj...@smartlinkindia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <+91%2092278%2086001>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier <
>>> b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> wrote:
>>>
 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 mailing list
 before the meeting.

 The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
 important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
 express your views on the proposal:

  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
tell the community about your situation.
  - 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?

 Information about this proposal is available at:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123

 Regards

 Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
 APNIC Policy SIG Chairs

 https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt

 ---

 prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

 ---

 Proposer:Alex Yang
  yang...@126.com


 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 103/8
 block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.

 However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
 Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
 community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
 resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
 transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
 there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
 Whois data.


 2. Objective of policy change
 ---

 To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.


 3. Situation in other regions
 ---

 No such situation in other regions.


 4. Proposed policy solution
 ---

 “Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
 which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
 should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[Skeeve Stevens]

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

Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
Twitter: eintellego 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile
 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Sanjeev Gupta  wrote:

> Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear
> definition of "genuine".  It is unfair to them to expect that they
> administer a rule which is not well defined.
>
> Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
>
>
> --
> Sanjeev Gupta
> +65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala  > wrote:
>
>> 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 <+91%2092278%2086001>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier <
>> b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 mailing list
>>> before the meeting.
>>>
>>> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
>>> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
>>> express your views on the proposal:
>>>
>>>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>>>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>>>tell the community about your situation.
>>>  - 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?
>>>
>>> Information about this proposal is available at:
>>>
>>>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>>>
>>> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Proposer:Alex Yang
>>>  yang...@126.com
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 103/8
>>> block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
>>>
>>> However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>>> Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
>>> community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
>>> resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
>>> transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
>>> there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
>>> Whois data.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Objective of policy change
>>> ---
>>>
>>> To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. Situation in other regions
>>> ---
>>>
>>> No such situation in other regions.
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>>> ---
>>>
>>> “Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
>>> which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
>>> should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
>>> Sep 2017.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Advantages:
>>>
>>> - Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
>>>   Whois data correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> Disadvantages:
>>>
>>> None.
>>>
>>>
>>> 6. Impact on resource holders
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
>>> were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 7. References
>>> 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[Skeeve Stevens]

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 Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia)
Pte Ltd.
Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
Twitter: eintellego 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile
 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala 
wrote:

> 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 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier <
> b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> wrote:
>
>> 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 mailing list
>> before the meeting.
>>
>> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
>> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
>> express your views on the proposal:
>>
>>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>>tell the community about your situation.
>>  - 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?
>>
>> Information about this proposal is available at:
>>
>>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>>
>> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
>>
>> ---
>>
>> prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Proposer:Alex Yang
>>  yang...@126.com
>>
>>
>> 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 103/8
>> block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
>>
>> However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>> Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
>> community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
>> resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
>> transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
>> there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
>> Whois data.
>>
>>
>> 2. Objective of policy change
>> ---
>>
>> To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
>>
>>
>> 3. Situation in other regions
>> ---
>>
>> No such situation in other regions.
>>
>>
>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>> ---
>>
>> “Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
>> which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
>> should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
>> Sep 2017.
>>
>>
>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
>> ---
>>
>> Advantages:
>>
>> - Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
>>   Whois data correct.
>>
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>>
>> None.
>>
>>
>> 6. Impact on resource holders
>> ---
>>
>> Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
>> were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>>
>>
>>
>> 7. References
>> ---
>>
>>
>> *  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:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[Skeeve Stevens]

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 very much object to the 5 year period that snuck in at the last
APNIC meeting. I was happy with 2 years, but 5 years is unreasonable.

I was going to make a submission to change this back to 2 years, but
unfortunately, work got in the way and I did not get the submission in on
time. Next meeting maybe.


...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

Facebook: eintellegonetworks  ;
Twitter: eintellego 

LinkedIn: /in/skeeve  ; Expert360: Profile
 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve


Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Cherrier  wrote:

> 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 mailing list
> before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>tell the community about your situation.
>  - 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?
>
> Information about this proposal is available at:
>
>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>
> Regards
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
>
> ---
>
> prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>
> ---
>
> Proposer:Alex Yang
>  yang...@126.com
>
>
> 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 103/8
> block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
>
> However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
> Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
> community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
> resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
> transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
> there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
> Whois data.
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> ---
>
> To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> ---
>
> No such situation in other regions.
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
>
> “Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
> which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
> should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
> Sep 2017.
>
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> ---
>
> Advantages:
>
> - Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
>   Whois data correct.
>
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> None.
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
> ---
>
> Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
> were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>
>
>
> 7. References
> ---
>
>
> *  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:  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] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Rajesh Panwala]

Dear Team,

As statistics suggest, M cases are hardly 2 to 3% of the total
delegations. M are the routine business activities, and no one can
predict when will it happen .
I support the policy.

Rajesh Panwala
For Smartlink solutions Pvt. Ltd.
+91-9227886001

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:38 PM, andrew khoo <andrew.k...@as136019.net>
wrote:

> we will vote to support this policy.
>
> as a practical example, the organisation i work for will be affected by
> this policy.
>
> the organisation (a mobile MVNO) acquired a business in 2016 with a /22
> from the 103/8 range with the intention of offering fixed line services.
>
> we are seeking to merge the purchased entity's /22 into our APNIC account.
>
> if we do not do this, the details in APNIC whois for the purchased entity
> will soon be no longer valid.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> 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
>>
>> ==
>>
>>
>>
>> *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 <
>> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
>> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Guangliang,
>>
>> How many M were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to
>> 14 Sep 2017.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sanjeev,
>>
>>
>>
>> The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years
>> count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations
>> are not 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@lis
>> ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta
>> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM
>> *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>
>> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
>> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively".  People who
>> "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different
>> now.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was
>> sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the
>> rules were changing.
>>
>>
>>
>> APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sanjeev Gupta
>> +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208>   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <
>> michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
>>
>> Not supported
>>
>>
>>
>> The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>>
>>
>>
>> None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer 
>> IPv4 addresses in
>>
>> the final /8 block.
>>
>> ___
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Mike*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis
>> ts.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 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.
>&g

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

[andrew khoo]

we will vote to support this policy.

as a practical example, the organisation i work for will be affected by
this policy.

the organisation (a mobile MVNO) acquired a business in 2016 with a /22
from the 103/8 range with the intention of offering fixed line services.

we are seeking to merge the purchased entity's /22 into our APNIC account.

if we do not do this, the details in APNIC whois for the purchased entity
will soon be no longer valid.




On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> 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
>
> ==
>
>
>
> *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 <
> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> Hi Guangliang,
>
> How many M were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to
> 14 Sep 2017.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Sanjeev,
>
>
>
> The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years
> count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations
> are not 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
> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM
> *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>
> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively".  People who
> "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different
> now.
>
>
>
> I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was
> sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the
> rules were changing.
>
>
>
> APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sanjeev Gupta
> +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208>   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <
> michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
>
> Not supported
>
>
>
> The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
>
> ___
>
> Disadvantages:
>
>
>
> None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer 
> IPv4 addresses in
>
> the final /8 block.
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 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 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 mailing list
> before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>tell the community about your situation.
>  - 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?
>
> Information about this proposal is available at:
>
>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>
> Regards
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
>
> ---
>
>
>
> prop-123-v001: M

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[Aftab Siddiqui]

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 103/8
> block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
>
> However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
> Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
> community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
> resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
> transfer.
>
> ftp://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/membership-agreement.txt

5General


5.1APNIC Documents
The Member agrees that:
(a) The APNIC Documents may be amended from time to time in
accordance with the Document Review Policy;
(b) Any such amendments are binding upon the Member;
(c) APNIC Documents as they exist from time to time form an integral
part of and apply fully to this agreement; and


If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
> there will be underground transfers.
>
> You mean leasing? or resource holder gives away access to myapnic account
along with resources? because there is no such thing as underground
transfer.

> This will cause incorrect APNIC Whois data.
>
>  I appreciate your intentions.
-- 
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] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[Satoru Tsurumaki]

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,

Satoru Tsurumaki
JPOPF Steering Team (former JPNIC Policy Working Group)




2018-01-26 12:27 GMT+09:00 Bertrand Cherrier :

> 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 mailing list
> before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>tell the community about your situation.
>  - 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?
>
> Information about this proposal is available at:
>
>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>
> Regards
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
>
> ---
>
> prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>
> ---
>
> Proposer:Alex Yang
>  yang...@126.com
>
>
> 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 103/8
> block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
>
> However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
> Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
> community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
> resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
> transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
> there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
> Whois data.
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> ---
>
> To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> ---
>
> No such situation in other regions.
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
>
> “Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
> which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
> should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
> Sep 2017.
>
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> ---
>
> Advantages:
>
> - Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
>   Whois data correct.
>
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> None.
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
> ---
>
> Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
> were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>
>
>
> 7. References
> ---
>
>
> *  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:  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] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[Guangliang Pan]

Hi Muhammad,

The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (five years count 
back from today) to 14th Sep 2017 is 10868. 

After 14th Sep 2017, the number of delegations from 103/8 pool is 663.

Total 11531 delegations from 103/8 have not passed five years after its 
allocation/assignment.

Kind regards,
Guangliang
== 


-Original Message-
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Yasir Shamim, Muhammad
Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 6:39 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

Hi APNIC Secretariat

How many transfers will be affected by prop-116-v006, since 14th Sep 2017 ?

Regards
Muhammad Yasir Shamim

-Original Message-
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of 
sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 1:13 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 8

Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
sig-policy-ow...@lists.apnic.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re:  prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
  (Rajesh Panwala)
   2.  sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 7 (Yasir Shamim, 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-ID:
<caftveg6qvzwz59-iz2zhbcamir0tttxzf53zdkyf0c8o34p...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Team,

My submission is " All M cases should be excluded from denying the transfer."

As M is routine business activity, there is no point barring transfer.

regards,

Rajesh Panwala
For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
+91-9227886001

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz> wrote:

> Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear 
> definition of "genuine".  It is unfair to them to expect that they 
> administer a rule which is not well defined.
>
> Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
>
>
> --
> Sanjeev Gupta
> +65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala 
> <raj...@smartlinkindia.com
> > wrote:
>
>> 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 <+91%2092278%2086001>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier < 
>> b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 mailing 
>>> list before the meeting.
>>>
>>> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an 
>>> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you 
>>> to express your views on the proposal:
>>>
>>>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>>>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>>>tell the community about your situation.
>>>  - 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?
>>>
>>> Information about this proposal is available at:
>>>
>>>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>>>

[sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[Yasir Shamim, Muhammad]

Hi APNIC Secretariat

How many transfers will be affected by prop-116-v006, since 14th Sep 2017 ?

Regards
Muhammad Yasir Shamim

-Original Message-
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of
sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 1:13 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 8

Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
sig-policy-ow...@lists.apnic.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re:  prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
  (Rajesh Panwala)
   2.  sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 7 (Yasir Shamim, 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-ID:
<caftveg6qvzwz59-iz2zhbcamir0tttxzf53zdkyf0c8o34p...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Team,

My submission is " All M cases should be excluded from denying the
transfer."

As M is routine business activity, there is no point barring transfer.

regards,

Rajesh Panwala
For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
+91-9227886001

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz> wrote:

> Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear 
> definition of "genuine".  It is unfair to them to expect that they 
> administer a rule which is not well defined.
>
> Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
>
>
> --
> Sanjeev Gupta
> +65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala 
> <raj...@smartlinkindia.com
> > wrote:
>
>> 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 <+91%2092278%2086001>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier < 
>> b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 mailing 
>>> list before the meeting.
>>>
>>> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an 
>>> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you 
>>> to express your views on the proposal:
>>>
>>>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>>>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>>>tell the community about your situation.
>>>  - 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?
>>>
>>> Information about this proposal is available at:
>>>
>>>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>>>
>>> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Proposer:Alex Yang
>>>  yang...@126.com
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Problem statement
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses 
>

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[Rajesh Panwala]

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 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier  wrote:

> 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 mailing list
> before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>tell the community about your situation.
>  - 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?
>
> Information about this proposal is available at:
>
>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>
> Regards
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
>
> ---
>
> prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>
> ---
>
> Proposer:Alex Yang
>  yang...@126.com
>
>
> 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 103/8
> block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
>
> However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
> Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
> community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
> resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
> transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
> there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
> Whois data.
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> ---
>
> To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> ---
>
> No such situation in other regions.
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
>
> “Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
> which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
> should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
> Sep 2017.
>
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> ---
>
> Advantages:
>
> - Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
>   Whois data correct.
>
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> None.
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
> ---
>
> Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
> were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>
>
>
> 7. References
> ---
>
>
> *  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:  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] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Sanjeev Gupta]

Hi,

I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively".  People who
"bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different
now.

I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was
sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the
rules were changing.

APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?


-- 
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <
michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:

> Not supported
>
>
>
> The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
>
> ___
>
> Disadvantages:
>
>
>
> None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer 
> IPv4 addresses in
>
> the final /8 block.
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 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 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 mailing list
> before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>tell the community about your situation.
>  - 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?
>
> Information about this proposal is available at:
>
>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
>
> Regards
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
>
> ---
>
>
>
> prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Proposer:Alex Yang
>
>  yang...@126.com
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 103/8
>
> block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
>
>
>
> However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
>
> Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
>
> community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
>
> resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
>
> transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
>
> there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
>
> Whois data.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
>
> ---
>
>
>
> To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
>
>
>
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
>
> ---
>
>
>
> No such situation in other regions.
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
>
> ---
>
>
>
> “Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
>
> which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
>
> should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
>
> Sep 2017.
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Advantages:
>
>
>
> - Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
>
>   Whois data correct.
>
>
>
>
>
> Disadvantages:
>
>
>
> None.
>
>
>
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
>
> ---

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Henderson Mike, Mr]

Not supported

The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
___

Disadvantages:



None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 
addresses in

the final /8 block.
___


Regards


Mike

From: sig-policy-boun...@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 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 mailing list
before the meeting.

The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:

 - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
 - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
   tell the community about your situation.
 - 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?

Information about this proposal is available at:

   http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123

Regards

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs

https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt


---



prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy



---



Proposer:Alex Yang

 yang...@126.com<mailto:yang...@126.com>





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 103/8

block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.



However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.

Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The

community was not aware of the restriction when they received those

resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to

transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,

there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC

Whois data.





2. Objective of policy change

---



To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.





3. Situation in other regions

---



No such situation in other regions.





4. Proposed policy solution

---



“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)

which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”

should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14

Sep 2017.





5. Advantages / Disadvantages

---



Advantages:



- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC

  Whois data correct.





Disadvantages:



None.





6. Impact on resource holders

---



Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources

were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.







7. References

---

The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or 
distribute this message or the information in it.

If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
the sender immediately.
*  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] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

[Bertrand Cherrier]

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 mailing list
before the meeting.

The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:

 - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
 - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
   tell the community about your situation.
 - 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?

Information about this proposal is available at:

   http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123 


Regards

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs

https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt 
 
---

prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

---

Proposer:Alex Yang
 yang...@126.com


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 103/8 
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.

However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. 
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The 
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those 
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to 
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered, 
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC 
Whois data.


2. Objective of policy change
---

To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.


3. Situation in other regions
---

No such situation in other regions.


4. Proposed policy solution
---

“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment” 
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14 
Sep 2017.


5. Advantages / Disadvantages
---

Advantages:

- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC 
  Whois data correct.


Disadvantages:

None.


6. Impact on resource holders
---

Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources 
were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.



7. References
---*  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