*Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1* Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion after reading the data.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 13:04 Lu Heng <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- 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
