Hi Aftab,
Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you.
Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the
last 12 months is 97.
Below is the breakdown of reasons:
Fraud: 4
Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1
Recipient did not accept transfer: 6
Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
No response from member: 30
Member requested to cancel transfer: 33
As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part
of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
George
On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
Hi Aftab,
For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15
August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to
complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a
correspondence within two working days.
We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as
soon as I have the information.
thanks,
George
On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
