The vast majority of representatives in various countries are not actually elected by majorities… Usually they are elected by mere pluralities.
Owen > On Sep 2, 2023, at 03:38, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy > <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote: > > Laws aren’t ONLY made by means of elected representatives of majority of the > population. Minorities together in parliaments also make laws. > > But further than that, individuals, not elected, can make laws (by means of > law changes). At least in my country, a certain number of signatures properly > documented from (non-elected) citizens, can do that. > > Also a single individual can fight in courts against laws. I’ve got success a > couple of times in my country by means of Constitutional Courts cases against > my government and specific laws, and my claim triggered law changes, good for > all. This is what I mean when say that any individual can contribute to the > good of the community, if you do the effort. > > Regards, > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > >> El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:24, Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com> escribió: >> >> Law maker are elected representative of majority population. >> >> Jordi, remind me who elected you? >> >> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:20 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy >> <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>> wrote: >>> Ignorance of the law doesn’t mean you’re bind to it. Same here. >>> >>> The PDP is open to all, is not about 20 or 2.000.000 people. All Internet >>> users on the earth can participate, is not an exclusive club. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jordi >>> >>> @jordipalet >>> >>> >>>> El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:13, Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com >>>> <mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>> escribió: >>>> >>>> >>>> ignorance does not constitute consensus. >>>> >>>> And that is the fundamental problem of this list, a small group of people >>>> think they can represent all internet user on earth. >>>> >>>> No, you can not, policy pass here does not reflect true community wish, >>>> policy pass here only reflect the consensus of people participating in the >>>> discussion, in which by my count, only 20 people? >>>> >>>> People haven’t pay attention or don’t care, does not mean they agree what >>>> you. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:09 Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com >>>> <mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>> wrote: >>>>> Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting. >>>>> >>>>> And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members >>>>> “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer. >>>>> >>>>> And it’s just a policy of a private limited company. >>>>> >>>>> It does not constitute law. >>>>> >>>>> And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to >>>>> reflect the market reality. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy >>>>> <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>> wrote: >>>>>> Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part >>>>>> of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members: >>>>>> >>>>>> 4.0. Resource License >>>>>> >>>>>> It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests >>>>>> of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to >>>>>> be considered freehold property. >>>>>> >>>>>> Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. >>>>>> Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than >>>>>> “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise >>>>>> transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this >>>>>> document. >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be >>>>>> distributed according to demonstrated need. >>>>>> >>>>>> The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that >>>>>> globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than >>>>>> owned. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Jordi >>>>>> >>>>>> @jordipalet >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com >>>>>>> <mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>> escribió: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jordi: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who define those legal rights? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who said it is not a property? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy >>>>>>> <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess >>>>>>>> against code of conduct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a >>>>>>>> property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the >>>>>>>> right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to >>>>>>>> transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same >>>>>>>> reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of >>>>>>>> wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal >>>>>>>> perspective. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Jordi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @jordipalet >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com >>>>>>>>> <mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>> escribió: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jordi: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last >>>>>>>>> night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy >>>>>>>>> <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling >>>>>>>>>> addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. >>>>>>>>>> That’s it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Jordi >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @jordipalet >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>> escribió: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jordi: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That must be a long time ago. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a >>>>>>>>>>> reason. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get >>>>>>>>>>> IP for resale. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy >>>>>>>>>>> <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Mike, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the >>>>>>>>>>>> question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request >>>>>>>>>>>> for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a >>>>>>>>>>>> valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original >>>>>>>>>>>> justification of the need. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Jordi >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> @jordipalet >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> El 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:m...@iptrading.com>> escribió: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have >>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out before in other fora to the authors. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false. >>>>>>>>>>>>> RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional >>>>>>>>>>>>> transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE >>>>>>>>>>>>> directly. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states >>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem we are trying to solve? >>>>>>>>>>>>> The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing >>>>>>>>>>>>> “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks >>>>>>>>>>>>> being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.” >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was >>>>>>>>>>>>> simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by >>>>>>>>>>>>> networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, >>>>>>>>>>>>> making it safer for the community? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Burns >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <su...@apnic.net >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:su...@apnic.net>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - >>>>>>>>>>>>> Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of >>>>>>>>>>>>> addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Questions/Comments: >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is >>>>>>>>>>>>> considered >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'leasing'? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are >>>>>>>>>>>>> being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be >>>>>>>>>>>>> checking? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only >>>>>>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>>>>> addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it >>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches >>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus)? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - How does this proposal apply to account holders who have >>>>>>>>>>>>> previously >>>>>>>>>>>>> received delegations and use the IP addresses under different >>>>>>>>>>>>> entities >>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Implementation: >>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal >>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three >>>>>>>>>>>>> months. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sunny >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SIG members, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Policy SIG for review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Information about earlier versions is available from: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Do you support or oppose the proposal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> effective? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please find the text of the proposal below. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam >>>>>>>>>>>>>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Acceptable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com>) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudh...@ccaoi.in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:amritachoudh...@ccaoi.in>) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fernando Frediani (fhfred...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:fhfred...@gmail.com>) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Problem statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources >>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to directly connect its customers based on justified need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Addresses are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the appropriate transfer policy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>>>>>>>> spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> link >>>>>>>>>>>>>> between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses >>>>>>>>>>>>>> security >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource >>>>>>>>>>>>>> holder who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has received the license to use the addresses does not have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire community. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connectivity service, as it was documented with the original >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> however >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for those >>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect >>>>>>>>>>>>>> customers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual >>>>>>>>>>>>>> license for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2.6. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but an explicit clarification is required. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Objective of policy change >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate clarifying text. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Situation in other regions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be presented as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptable as a justification of the need. In AFRINIC and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LACNIC, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Proposed policy solution >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> NIR, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the justification of the need implies the need to use on their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unacceptable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request. Even for networks that are not connected to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request >>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> case of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also >>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiate the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email >>>>>>>>>>>>>> address or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other means developed by APNIC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy violation and revocation may apply against any account >>>>>>>>>>>>>> holders >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial request. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Advantages: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disadvantages: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Impact on resource holders >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7. References >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaila Sharmin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +8801811447396 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIG-policy - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ********************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>> IPv4 is over >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>> The IPv6 Company >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be >>>>>>>>>>>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for >>>>>>>>>>>> the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further >>>>>>>>>>>> non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use >>>>>>>>>>>> of the contents of this information, even if partially, including >>>>>>>>>>>> attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a >>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware >>>>>>>>>>>> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents >>>>>>>>>>>> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, >>>>>>>>>>>> is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so >>>>>>>>>>>> you must reply to the original sender to inform about this >>>>>>>>>>>> communication and delete it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards. >>>>>>>>>>> Lu >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ********************************************** >>>>>>>>>> IPv4 is over >>>>>>>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >>>>>>>>>> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/> >>>>>>>>>> The IPv6 Company >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged >>>>>>>>>> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive >>>>>>>>>> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty >>>>>>>>>> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents >>>>>>>>>> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is >>>>>>>>>> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If >>>>>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, >>>>>>>>>> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, >>>>>>>>>> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, >>>>>>>>>> will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the >>>>>>>>>> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ********************************************** >>>>>>>> IPv4 is over >>>>>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >>>>>>>> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/> >>>>>>>> The IPv6 Company >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged >>>>>>>> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive >>>>>>>> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty >>>>>>>> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of >>>>>>>> this information, even if partially, including attached files, is >>>>>>>> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you >>>>>>>> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, >>>>>>>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if >>>>>>>> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be >>>>>>>> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original >>>>>>>> sender to inform about this communication and delete it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net >>>>>>>> <mailto:sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net> >>>>>> >>>>>> ********************************************** >>>>>> IPv4 is over >>>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >>>>>> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/> >>>>>> The IPv6 Company >>>>>> >>>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or >>>>>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of >>>>>> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized >>>>>> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this >>>>>> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly >>>>>> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the >>>>>> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution >>>>>> or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including >>>>>> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal >>>>>> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this >>>>>> communication and delete it. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net >>>>>> <mailto:sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net> >>> >>> ********************************************** >>> IPv4 is over >>> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >>> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/> >>> The IPv6 Company >>> >>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or >>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of >>> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized >>> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this >>> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly >>> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the >>> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or >>> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including >>> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal >>> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this >>> communication and delete it. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net >>> <mailto:sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net> > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > _______________________________________________ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
