Dear Alex Thank you for your clarification ! I understand this policy and personally support it.
Satoru 2018-01-31 19:09 GMT+09:00 yang...@126.com <yang...@126.com>: > Dear Satoru > > Thank you for your understanding , and for the second problem : Not > only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right !!! > > My suggestion is : > > M&A is ineluctable , and NO one know when it will happen from what > entities , and even one company may have more than one M&A > > So my proposal is for the IPv4 Blocks allocated before prop-116 , and > for the M&A situation, should have the equal right with others (Not only > one-time) > > Other IPv4 blocks allocated after prop-116 or other situation should > strictly obey the policy . Sorry maybe there were some mistakes for my > explaination last time. > > > ________________________________ > Alex Yang > > > From: Satoru Tsurumaki > Date: 2018-01-31 09:49 > To: yang...@126.com; sig-policy > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10 > 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 yang...@126.com <yang...@126.com>: >> >> 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 >> Date: 2018-01-29 18:30 >> To: sig-policy >> Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10 >> Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >> >> 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 >> sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> sig-policy-ow...@lists.apnic.net >> >> 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 <satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp> >> To: SIG policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net> >> 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 <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>: >> >> > 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 >> > >> -------------- 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 <joinaj...@gmail.com> >> To: Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz> >> Cc: sig-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net> >> 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 <sanj...@dcs1.biz> 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 >> > <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 <+91%2092278%2086001> >> >> >> >> 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 >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> (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 >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >> 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 >> 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 -- -- Satoru Tsurumaki BBIX, Inc * 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