Hello,
Just wanted to point out that LACNIC allows intra-regional transfers now and a few have been completed. For what it’s worth, from a broker’s perspective, we like the RIPE policy best, and I support this proposed change to APNIC policy to harmonize with RIPE. This policy is the best of both worlds, the no-needs policy the APNIC community decided was appropriate years ago but which was modified to suit ARIN will return, but transfers of ARIN addresses into APNIC can continue. No RIR’s transfer policy is optimal, but if this APNIC proposal passes, APNIC will, in my opinion, take RIPE’s place as the most market-friendly policy because RIPE retains a 2 year holding requirement which impairs the market, and which is not present in APNIC. Also one unmentioned advantage to this proposal is the reduced incentive to engage in off-the-books transfers which reduce Whois accuracy. And one unmentioned disadvantage is the potential for hoarding addresses. I want to point out that RIPE has not suffered from this disadvantage and there has never been any evidence for address hoarding in the transfer market that I am aware of. Any speculator knows that IPv4 values will be zero when the IPv6 transition is complete, that all policy transfers are public, that policy can be changed by stakeholders, and that increased IPv4 prices will tend to drive the IPv6 transition. This combination of facts precludes hoarders and speculators from entering this market. Regards, Mike Burns IPTrading From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sumon Ahmed Sabir Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 5:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 43 in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam on Wednesday, 1 March 2017. 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-118> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 Regards Masato, Sumon APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: David Hilario <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] 1. Problem statement ------------------------------------------------------- Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend to transfer. Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers. 2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------------------------------- Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff. 3. Situation in other regions ------------------------------------------------------- RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their intended use of the resources . ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN. AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource request from AFRINIC based on needs. LACNIC, no transfers, need based request. Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer policies, ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE region. 4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------------------------------- Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility: - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating to transfers within its service region. - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within 5 years. source: <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ------------------------------------------------------- Advantages: - Harmonisation with RIPE region. - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and between APNIC and RIPE. - maintains a compatibility with ARIN. - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected based on potentially badly documented needs. - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff. Disadvantages: none. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------- None 7. References -------------------------------------------------------
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
