We can agree to disagree.

This is, IMHO, the kind of speculation in 103/8 blocks that the policy 
(original 2 year limit) was intended to target.

The expansion of this to a 5 year limit, while excessive IMHO, seems to likely 
be community reaction to just this sort of behavior, so I have no problem with 
the result.

Owen

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 09:06 , Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> We brokered a sale of a 103 block when it was within policy to do so.
>  
> Now that buyer, who paid money for the block with the understanding that he 
> could resell it, has had the situation changed to his detriment by the new 
> restrictive policy.
>  
> I support the grandfathering-in of 103 blocks allocated prior to the recent 5 
> year policy, allowing them to be resold but preventing those who receive 103 
> blocks after the 5 year policy was implemented from reselling before 5 years. 
>  (Although  5 years is too long, IMO)
>  
> I support this policy.
>  
>  
>  
> From: [email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]> 
> [mailto:[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:40 AM
> To: Bertrand Cherrier <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> SIG List 
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>  
> I very much support this policy. A policy should not be retrospectively 
> applied otherwise anything any of us may do or plan to do can be considered 
> guaranteed, and I would see a case for requesting APNIC to return funds for 
> any services provided that have been negated by policy changes.
>  
> I also very much object to the 5 year period that snuck in at the last APNIC 
> meeting. I was happy with 2 years, but 5 years is unreasonable.
>  
> I was going to make a submission to change this back to 2 years, but 
> unfortunately, work got in the way and I did not get the submission in on 
> time. Next meeting maybe.
> 
> 
> ...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 Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Cherrier <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[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 
>> <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
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> *              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>
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to