Thanks George for the details. So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> > -- 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
