Dear sunny
Thank you very much for your feedback.
Alex Yang
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Date: 2018-02-19 10:19
To: [email protected]; sig-policy
Subject: Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Hi Alex,
Here is the date you requested.
> > 1、How many invalid Whois contact reports received by
> APNIC in 2017？ Or per month in average in 2017？
In 2017, we received a total of 3,915 reports of invalid contacts in
whois database. These reports included:
- Multiple reports for the same invalid whois contact
- Reports for invalid contacts associated with customer assignments
- Reports for unresponsive contacts (Email does not bounce but whois
contact does not respond)
- Network abuse activities reported incorrectly via invalid contact
report form
> > 2、How many delegations from the 103/8 ?
To date, we have made 13884 delegations from the 103/8 pool.
> > 3、How many m&a cases from 103/8 are adopted by apnic
> before the prop-116, and how many be prohibited after the policy?
The number of M&A transfers from 103/8 address block between 15 April
2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Since the implementation of prop 116, APNIC has rejected 18 M&A transfer
requests as they did not meet the policy criteria.
> > 4、How many ranges from 103/8 have the transfer
> requirement but due to the prop-116, which are in the state of waiting?
We don't have this number as we don’t know how many of them wish to
transfer.
Regards
Sunny
APNIC Secretariat
On 19/02/2018 11:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Hello Sig policy chairs,
>
> > Can I ask you some questions about :
> >
> > 1、How many invalid Whois contact reports received by
> APNIC in 2017？ Or per month in average in 2017？
> > 2、How many delegations from the 103/8 ?
> > 3、How many m&a cases from 103/8 are adopted by apnic
> before the prop-116, and how many be prohibited after the policy?
> > 4、How many ranges from 103/8 have the transfer
> requirement but due to the prop-116, which are in the state of waiting ?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [email protected]
>
> *From:* sig-policy-request <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Date:* 2018-02-01 16:29
> *To:* sig-policy <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Subject:* sig-policy Digest, Vol 165, Issue 11
> Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to
> [email protected]
> 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
> [email protected]
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [email protected]
> 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
> [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] (Guangliang Pan)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 08:29:45 +0000
> From: Guangliang Pan <[email protected]>
> To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
> Message-ID:
>
> <sg2pr04mb1613c481f707cc93440108d1c6...@sg2pr04mb1613.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>
> <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20180201/f1494181/attachment.html>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 165, Issue 11
> *******************************************
>
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> [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
