> On Jan 31, 2018, at 11:52 , Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > > “This is, IMHO, the kind of speculation in 103/8 blocks that the policy > (original 2 year limit) was intended to target.” > > Not to my thinking. The thing that was targeted by policy was the tapping of > the free pool in order to then turn around and sell. The problem foreseen > was a recurrence of the RIPE problem, where new LIRs are spun up just to > avail themselves of the pool reserved for new applicants. > > In the case I mentioned, the buyer, who did not tap the pool but instead paid > money, is now prevented from resale.
True, but the person he bought the registration from, OTOH, was only able to sell due to the loophole, so I have little sympathy for this particular corner case. > If the target of the policy is the protection of the remaining pool reserved > for new entrants, preventing *prior* recipients from selling is missing that > target, because the free pool is not affected. This is the same logic that failed with Ivory. > That is why I could support a waiting period moving forward, as that will > protect the pool as intended. I would concur with your 24 month period as > being more reasonable. As I stated previously in reply to Skeeve. The statistics don’t bear out the problem I thought would exist, so I’m no longer objecting to this proposal. However, I don’t grant the premise of your argument above. Owen > > Regards, > Mike > > > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:39 PM > To: Mike Burns <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Skeeve Stevens <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; Bertrand Cherrier > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy > > 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] >> <mailto:[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
