I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the
distributed portion of 103/8.
I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8
resources have been subject
to one or more M&A transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested in
the number instances where
the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).
I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:
1. Stand up shell entity
2. Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block.
3. Merge shell entity into parent entity and M&A transfer block
into parent’s holdings.
4. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Owen
> On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been
> enshrined in policy.
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte
> Ltd.
> Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia <http://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
> <https://keybase.io/skeeve>
>
> Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi Aftab,
>
>
>
> The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011
> to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Guangliang
>
> ==========
>
>
>
> From: Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>]
> Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM
> To: Guangliang Pan <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Cc: Sanjeev Gupta <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
> mailman_SIG-policy <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
> [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> Hi Guangliang,
>
> How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14
> Sep 2017.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Sanjeev,
>
>
>
> The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count
> back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not
> allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Guangliang
>
> =========
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> [mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Sanjeev Gupta
> Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM
> To: Henderson Mike, Mr <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
> [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who
> "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different
> now.
>
>
>
> I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was
> sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules
> were changing.
>
>
>
> APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sanjeev Gupta
> +65 98551208 <tel:+65%209855%201208> http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
> <http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Not supported
>
>
>
> The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
>
> ___________________________
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer
> IPv4 addresses in
> the final /8 block.
> ___________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> From: [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> [mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Bertrand Cherrier
> Sent: Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m.
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>
>
>
> 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
> <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
> <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] <mailto:[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
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the
> addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily
> the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are
> not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
> distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this
> message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
>
>
> * 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
> <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>
>
>
> * 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
> <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] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> <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
