My reads to the data shows exact needs for the policy. So don't blame data.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 16:03 Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't think George's data can leads your conclusion. >> >> > If the data from APNIC Sec can't help you to make up your mind then there > is nothing I can do. The information was good enough for me. > > >> >> 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 >> >> -- > Best Wishes, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > -- -- 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
