Tsurumaki-san, thank you for your feedback from the Japanese Open Policy Forum on prop-120 and 123
Cordialement, ___________________________________________ Bertrand Cherrier Administration Systèmes - R&D Micro Logic Systems b.cherr...@micrologic.nc <mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> https://www.mls.nc <https://www.mls.nc/> Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) > Le 14 févr. 2018 à 13:58, Satoru Tsurumaki > <satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp> a écrit : > > Dear Colleagues, > > I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team. > > I would like to share a feedback in our community for prop-123, > based on a meeting we organised on 31st Jan to discuss these proposals. > So please note that these comments are not reflect the discussion > after 31 Jan on this mailing list. > > > Many opposing comments were expressed on the proposal with reasons below. > > - Since all policies are applied retroactively, there is no reason > to exclude it only for prop-116 > > - Even if the proposal aims to relieve the entities those who made > genuine M&A, it would not be able to be distinguished from > intentional M&A for receiving a large number of IPv4 address. > > Best Regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki > JPOPF-ST > > > 2018-01-26 12:27 GMT+09:00 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc > <mailto: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 > <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 > yang...@126.com <mailto: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 <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> > 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 > 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
