Dear Alex Thank you for your response.
> In my opinion, any entity got the ipv4 blocks in 103/8 before 14 Sep 2017 should have the same right to use or transfer its blocks like others. I also think that their rights should be respected. But, > Not only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right , thank you very much !!! The recipient entities who are transferred 103/8 after 14 Sep 2017 know prop-116. I believe they have no right to transfer a 103/8 because they understand 5 years limitation and transferred it. So, I think the number of transfer of 103/8 before 14 Sep 2017 should be limited to one. Would you please give us your opinion ? BTW, About 60%+ 103/8 has already allocated. Therefore, the consensus of prop-123 means a substantial abolition of prop-116. We need re-think why prop-116 was consensus. Thanks, Satoru Tsurumaki 2018-01-29 20:09 GMT+09:00 [email protected] <[email protected]>: > Dear Satoru > > Thank you for your question, and i mean it is really a good > question! > > In my opinion, any entity got the ipv4 blocks in 103/8 before 14 > Sep 2017 should have the same right to use or transfer its blocks like > others. > > Not only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right , thank you > very much !!! > > ------------------------------ > Alex Yang > > > *From:* sig-policy-request <[email protected]> > *Date:* 2018-01-29 18:30 > *To:* sig-policy <[email protected]> > *Subject:* sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, 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: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy > (Satoru Tsurumaki) > 2. Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy (Ajai Kumar) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:03:38 +0900 > From: Satoru Tsurumaki <[email protected]> > To: SIG policy <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer > policy > Message-ID: > <cahxx+kqbptnrduvldtzknydhno0aqxhq4sbyxuqp8tmkq-v...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear Proposer > > I would like to clarify. > > My understanding is: > Prop-116 will be subject to the 103/8 IPv4 address which allocated before > 14 Sep 2017 and be transferred after this proposal will consensus. > It's mean that these address will be allowed to transfer "ONE-TIME". > > Is it correct ? > > Regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki > JPOPF Steering Team (former JPNIC Policy Working Group) > > > > > 2018-01-26 12:27 GMT+09:00 Bertrand Cherrier <[email protected]>: > > > Dear SIG members, > > > > The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has > > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in > > Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018. > > > > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list > > before the meeting. > > > > The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an > > important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to > > express your views on the proposal: > > > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal? > > - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, > > tell the community about your situation. > > - 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? > > > > Information about this proposal is available at: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123 > > > > Regards > > > > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Proposer: Alex Yang > > [email protected] > > > > > > 1. Problem statement > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in > > the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep > > 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8 > > block if the delegation date is less than 5 years. > > > > However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. > > Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The > > community was not aware of the restriction when they received those > > resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to > > transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered, > > there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC > > Whois data. > > > > > > 2. Objective of policy change > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To keep the APNIC Whois data correct. > > > > > > 3. Situation in other regions > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No such situation in other regions. > > > > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ?Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8) > > which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment? > > should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14 > > Sep 2017. > > > > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Advantages: > > > > - Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC > > Whois data correct. > > > > > > Disadvantages: > > > > None. > > > > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources > > were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. > > > > > > > > 7. References > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > > * > > _______________________________________________ > > sig-policy mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/ > attachments/20180129/533be3d9/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:00:44 +0530 > From: Ajai Kumar <[email protected]> > To: Sanjeev Gupta <[email protected]> > Cc: sig-policy <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer > policy > Message-ID: > <cal41znm5ws5j+tu6f0stdxmzhqpt_mgfejlonhabdutewgn...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear All, > For M&A cases, APNIC Secretariat has clear guidelines to handle it. I fully > agree with Rajesh on it. > Regards, > Ajai Kumar > > On 29 January 2018 at 12:04, Sanjeev Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear > > definition of "genuine". It is unfair to them to expect that they > > administer a rule which is not well defined. > > > > Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear). > > > > > > -- > > Sanjeev Gupta > > +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208> http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane > > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala < > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > >> I partially support the policy. For genuine M&A cases , there should not > >> be any restriction on transfer of resources. M&A activities are part and > >> parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place. > >> > >> regards, > >> > >> Rajesh Panwala > >> For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. > >> +91-9227886001 <+91%2092278%2086001> > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Dear SIG members, > >>> > >>> The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has > >>> been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > >>> > >>> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in > >>> Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018. > >>> > >>> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list > >>> before the meeting. > >>> > >>> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an > >>> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to > >>> express your views on the proposal: > >>> > >>> - Do you support or oppose this proposal? > >>> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, > >>> tell the community about your situation. > >>> - 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? > >>> > >>> Information about this proposal is available at: > >>> > >>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123 > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng > >>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > >>> > >>> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Proposer: Alex Yang > >>> [email protected] > >>> > >>> > >>> 1. Problem statement > >>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in > >>> the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep > >>> 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8 > >>> block if the delegation date is less than 5 years. > >>> > >>> However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. > >>> Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The > >>> community was not aware of the restriction when they received those > >>> resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to > >>> transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered, > >>> there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC > >>> Whois data. > >>> > >>> > >>> 2. Objective of policy change > >>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> To keep the APNIC Whois data correct. > >>> > >>> > >>> 3. Situation in other regions > >>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> No such situation in other regions. > >>> > >>> > >>> 4. Proposed policy solution > >>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> ?Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8) > >>> which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment? > >>> should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14 > >>> Sep 2017. > >>> > >>> > >>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > >>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Advantages: > >>> > >>> - Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC > >>> Whois data correct. > >>> > >>> > >>> Disadvantages: > >>> > >>> None. > >>> > >>> > >>> 6. Impact on resource holders > >>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources > >>> were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 7. References > >>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> > >>> * 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 > >> > > > > > > * 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/20180129/68ae089f/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10 > ******************************************* > > > * 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
