Hello Owen, There is 1.86% of the delegations from 103/8 block have been transferred by M&A. Out of that, only 5 ranges transferred more than once.
There are 152 members acquired 103/8 ranges via M&A transfers. It is 1% of the total membership (includes members under NIRs). Out of that, 123 members received one range, 16 members received two ranges and 13 members received more two ranges. Kind regards, Guangliang ========== From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2018 3:00 AM To: Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]> Cc: Guangliang Pan <[email protected]>; mailman_SIG-policy <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] 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]<mailto:[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 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 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 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]<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 * 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 -- 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 * 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
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
