Exactly, and I appreciate your respect instead of merely blaming my perusal of data.
There are 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters for completing a transfer request, with 158 request, which means in total 700-800 emails can be saved for no reason. The aim of the policy is to save unnecessary administrative burden for both members as well as APNIC staff. If a need test is needed to make sure that space is fully utilized, then we spend 800 emails which would only be found out to be less than 1% of request that will fail such test. In this sense why do we need such a test in the first place? On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 16:08 Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> wrote: > *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
