Agreed. I do agree that there needs to be some protections to avoid abuse of the last /8 resources, but, there seems to be a policy failure elsewhere in APNIC in relation to the evaluation of M&A which is allowing abusive transactions to occur.
...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala <raj...@smartlinkindia.com> 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 > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier < > b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> 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 >> yang...@126.com >> >> >> 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 >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
