Hi Aftab: I don't think George's data can leads your conclusion.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 15:35 Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- -- Kind regards. Lu
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
