Hi Ernest,

Thank you for the show of support.

David Hilario

*IP Manager*

*Larus Cloud Service Limited*

p: +852 29888918 <+852%202988%208918>  m: +359 89 764 1784
<+359%2089%20764%201784>
f: +852 29888068 <+852%202988%208068>
a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
w: laruscloudservice.net/uk
e: [email protected] <[email protected]>

On 1 March 2017 at 14:38, Ernest Tse <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I support this policy.
> Is it possible to suggest myAPNIC account for vote in the next meeting ?
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Ernest Tse
> Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.
> // Web: http://www.pacswitch.com
> // Tel:  +852-21570550 <+852%202157%200550>
> //Mobile: +852-62536678 <+852%206253%206678>
> //Skype: codesixs
>
> On Wed, 01/03/2017 16.25, David Hilario <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> The policy proposal was referred to the next APNIC meeting due to lack of
> support from the community, the show of hands in support and opposition in
> the room was in the low count.
>
> I would like to ask any remote participant on the list interested about
> this proposal who have not yet to come forward to please do so and show
> your support or opposition.
>
>
> Confer software was showing a large disproportionate support compared to
> the support in the room.
>
> During the session it was mention that people were "gaming the conf
> software", which is not acceptable.
>
> I therefore ask for 2 things from APNIC secretariat
>
> 1.
> APNIC secretariat please release any supporting information about the
> suspicion of system gaming, this is a very severe accusation against the
> APNIC community at large, denouncing whoever was behind that should be done.
>
> 2.
> Did other proposal get affected in the same manner?
>
>
>
> David Hilario
>
> *IP Manager*
>
> *Larus Cloud Service Limited*
>
> p: +852 29888918  m: +359 89 764 1784
> f: +852 29888068
> a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
> w: laruscloudservice.net/uk
> e: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>
> On 1 March 2017 at 06:05, David Hilario <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Hiroki,
>>
>> The recipient receiving the address space will be under the APNIC
>> policies in place, which mean they should be using the address space to
>> number their network or their customers network.
>>
>> So the received space is for them to use for their own network or
>> customers.
>>
>>
>>
>> David Hilario
>>
>> *IP Manager*
>>
>> *Larus Cloud Service Limited*
>>
>> p: +852 29888918  m: +359 89 764 1784
>> f: +852 29888068
>> a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
>> w: laruscloudservice.net/uk
>> e: [email protected]
>>
>>
>> On 1 March 2017 at 04:27, Hiroki Kawabata <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear David,
>>>
>>> We support this proposal in general but we'd like to confirm about your
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> Under the current transfer policy, we understand transferred address
>>> space are to be used
>>> by the recipient of the transfer, and not for re-sale purpose without
>>> use by the recipient.
>>>
>>> Please let me confirm that this remains unchanged under this policy
>>> proposal,
>>> i.e., the transfer policy is *not* for re-sale.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hiroki
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Hiroki Kawabata([email protected])
>>> Hostmaster, IP Address Department
>>> Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
>>> From: Sumon Ahmed Sabir <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Tue Jan 31 2017 19:44:58 GMT+0900
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Masato, Sumon
>>>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Proposer:       David Hilario
>>>>                 [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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>>        *
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sig-policy mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>>
>>
>>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to