I agree with skyone! Don't support 5 years change of prop-116 I just heard this policy from my friends! I learned how to subscribe to maillist, how to publish views in maillist! I also believe that many people don't know this policy! But this policy will have a very big impact on them!
________________________________ 发件人: [email protected] <[email protected]> 代表 [email protected] <[email protected]> 发送时间: 2017年10月17日 0:03:09 收件人: [email protected] 主题: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 11 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. Don't support 5 years change of prop-116 (skyone sky) 2. ??: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 10 (Tim Luca) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 06:15:03 +0000 (UTC) From: skyone sky <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [sig-policy] Don't support 5 years change of prop-116 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" It's a sudden change of this policy proposal. I don't support it because 5 years limitation for transfers is too strict.? I'm sure quite a lot members in the community? like me just knew or haven't known the proposal yet.? When we knew it, we don't like such a crazy strict proposal...? skyone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171017/6f42e8e2/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 07:03:02 +0000 From: Tim Luca <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [sig-policy] ??: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 10 Message-ID: <hk2pr04mb0673a4675bca2edcce6ae06881...@hk2pr04mb0673.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" M&A should be excluded, and new rules should not be harmful to normal business dealings! ________________________________ ???: [email protected] <[email protected]> ?? [email protected] <[email protected]> ????: 2017?10?17? 14:26:25 ???: [email protected] ??: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 10 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. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8 ([email protected]) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:27:01 +0800 From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: sig-policy <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" M&A shouldn't be included in the proposal. In this way, people's normal business will be seriously affected. From: sig-policy-request Date: 2017-10-16 15:08 To: sig-policy Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8 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. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 (? ??) 2. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7 (? ??) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 06:57:11 +0000 From: ? ?? <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 Message-ID: <by2pr20mb040765842b845c78e62e8199af...@by2pr20mb0407.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I object this propasal. If M&A happend, there is no reason to prohobit the IP transfer. ________________________________ skylee_615 From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Date: 2017-10-14 10:00 To: [email protected]<mailto:[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 ****************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171016/c4f2e6ae/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:08:39 +0000 From: ? ?? <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7 Message-ID: <by2pr20mb04070e50fadbeae0d7883510af...@by2pr20mb0407.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I object this propasal. If M&A happend, there is no reason to prohobit the IP transfer. ________________________________ skylee_615 From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Date: 2017-10-16 10:00 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7 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. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years (Ajai Kumar) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 12:40:00 +0530 From: Ajai Kumar <[email protected]> To: Rajesh Panwala <[email protected]> Cc: "steven.166" <[email protected]>, "[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: <cal41znpnx_liks4t95ok0xrofzv3fdbpr3kweovyckctqz9...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I also support it for 2 years only. Regards, Ajai Kumar On 14 October 2017 at 19:34, Rajesh Panwala <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Team > > Policy in sync with other RIR, is more reasonable. I also think 2 years is > appropriate. > > Rajesh Panwala > > On 13-Oct-2017 11:35 AM, "steven.166" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *Dear all,* >> >> 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 >> >> ???-???????????????? <http://mail.tom.com/webmail-static/welcomesxy.html> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> > > * 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171015/16f7cedd/attachment.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7 ****************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171016/573fc896/attachment.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8 ****************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171017/dc248865/attachment.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 10 ******************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171017/98f97c29/attachment.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 11 *******************************************
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
