Dear APNIC Sec,

Can you share some stats:

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

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear SIG members
>
> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at
> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
>
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will
> be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September
> 2017.
>
> Information about the proposal is available from:
>
>     http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
>
> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>
>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>  - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>  - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>  - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
>
> Please find the text of the proposal below.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Proposer:       David Hilario
>                 [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-chair mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>    *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

-- 
Best Wishes,

Aftab A. Siddiqui
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to