Yes, I also agree that M&A should be excluded in this policy. On 16 October 2017 at 12:27, ? ?? <[email protected]> wrote:
> I object this propasal. If M&A happend, there is no > reason to prohobit the IP transfer. > > ------------------------------ > skylee_615 > > > *From:* [email protected] > *Date:* 2017-10-14 10:00 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 > Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address > allocated after the policy officially issued (Brown Kevin) > 2. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the > address allocated after the policy officially issued (Mike Burns) > 3. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support > prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years (Mike Burns) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:36:26 +0800 > From: Brown Kevin <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in > the address allocated after the policy officially issued > Message-ID: > <caf02+oforxxcrocpsxhqojkef812aior8cwy0+tavyfjabm...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, > all the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially > issued. > I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit > term for 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract > between members and NIRs or LIRs or APNIC. > If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was > applied befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract? > I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the > policy officially issued. > > > Best Regards, > Kevin > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:48:05 -0400 > From: "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> > To: "'Brown Kevin'" <[email protected]>, > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- > apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > We have already brokered sales of 103 blocks in the past. > What about those who have received 103 blocks via transfer and not direct > allocation? > Are they exempted or grandfathered-in, or did they purchase something they > expected to be resellable, only to find that option has been removed from > them via policy change? > > I suggest, since APNIC has the records of 103 blocks which have already > been > transferred, that those blocks be explicitly treated as non-103 blocks, > allowing those blocks to be re-transferred. I am sure the number is small > relative to the number of /22s in 103/8. > > While I understand the nature of 103/8 is different from other blocks, in > general I am against waiting periods. They are designed to prevent > "flipping", but in fact they cause grief for those whose business plans or > environments change. And they prevent normal market activities that I > think > would be good for the IPv4 market. > > For example, we have done almost 500 transfers, and we think we could be > more efficient at the job of say, breaking down and selling a /16 as small > blocks than most /16 holders would be. In exchange for this efficiency, we > would extract profit. But holding-periods and needs-tests, imposed by > registry stewards, preclude this efficiency from entering the market. IPv4 > addresses are bought and sold every day, but artificial market restrictions > warp the market to the detriment of participants. The purported reason > for > these restrictions is to prevent speculation and hoarding, none of which > has > appeared in the RIPE community, which is where it would be expected to > appear, since RIPE removed the needs-test from transfers years ago. > > I think five years is too long, and no waiting period at all is > preferable. > > Regards, > Mike Burns > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brown Kevin > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:36 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the > address allocated after the policy officially issued > > There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, all > the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially issued. > I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit term for > 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract between members and > NIRs or LIRs or APNIC. > If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was applied > befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract? > I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the policy > officially issued. > > > Best Regards, > Kevin > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:38:48 -0400 > From: "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> > To: "'steven.166'" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue > 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > >As we know,RIPE NCC and ARIN have the similar 2 years limit for transfer. > > >We think 2 years limit is more reasonable. > > >It will make the policy more compatible with other RIRs. > > >Best Regards, > > >Steven > > Hi Steven, > > Actually it?s: > > > ARIN 1 year > > RIPE 2 years > > LACNIC 3 years > > > And we are conflating things. Here is my understanding: > > > ARIN has no ?final /8? policy, so the 1 year policy applies to all > transfers except mergers and acquisitions. > > RIPE?s has a ?final /8? policy, but still the 2 years applies to all > transfers. > > LACNIC?s 3 year policy applies to all direct allocations from LACNIC (not > just final /8) , but not to resales of prior transfers. > > > But APNIC is considering a waiting period only on the 103 block, that > would be inherently different from the other registries, so finding > compatibility will be limited in any case. > > > Regards, > Mike Burns > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/ > attachments/20171013/7df6bcec/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 > ****************************************** > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > -- (M) +91-9868477444 Skype ID:erajay P-mail: joinajay1 at gmail.com ................................. Please don't print this email unless you really need to. This will preserve trees on our planet.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
