Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
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 yangpf6@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 -------------------------------------------------------
I partially support the policy. For genuine M&A cases , there should not be any restriction on transfer of resources. M&A activities are part and parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc
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
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 yangpf6@126.com
- 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.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- 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.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
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
Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear definition of "genuine". It is unfair to them to expect that they administer a rule which is not well defined.
Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
Dear Team,
My submission is " All M&A cases should be excluded from denying the transfer."
As M&A is routine business activity, there is no point barring transfer.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz wrote:
Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear definition of "genuine". It is unfair to them to expect that they administer a rule which is not well defined.
Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala <rajesh@smartlinkindia.com
wrote:
I partially support the policy. For genuine M&A cases , there should not be any restriction on transfer of resources. M&A activities are part and parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001 <+91%2092278%2086001>
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier < b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> 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
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 yangpf6@126.com
- 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.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- 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.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
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
I agree, but there needs to be some protection for APNIC on the resources left.
But I think the APNIC EC can probably decide on the best way to evaluate this themselves.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: 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 Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Rajesh Panwala rajesh@smartlinkindia.com wrote:
Dear Team,
My submission is " All M&A cases should be excluded from denying the transfer."
As M&A is routine business activity, there is no point barring transfer.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz wrote:
Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear definition of "genuine". It is unfair to them to expect that they administer a rule which is not well defined.
Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala < rajesh@smartlinkindia.com> wrote:
I partially support the policy. For genuine M&A cases , there should not be any restriction on transfer of resources. M&A activities are part and parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001 <+91%2092278%2086001>
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier < b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> 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
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 yangpf6@126.com
- 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.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- 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.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
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
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
Dear All, For M&A cases, APNIC Secretariat has clear guidelines to handle it. I fully agree with Rajesh on it. Regards, Ajai Kumar
On 29 January 2018 at 12:04, Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz wrote:
Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear definition of "genuine". It is unfair to them to expect that they administer a rule which is not well defined.
Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208> http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala <rajesh@smartlinkindia.com
wrote:
I partially support the policy. For genuine M&A cases , there should not be any restriction on transfer of resources. M&A activities are part and parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001 <+91%2092278%2086001>
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier < b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> 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
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 yangpf6@126.com
- 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.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- 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.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
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
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
So define it better. This could be undertaken by the EC outside the scope of policy IMHO.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: 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 Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz wrote:
Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear definition of "genuine". It is unfair to them to expect that they administer a rule which is not well defined.
Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala <rajesh@smartlinkindia.com
wrote:
I partially support the policy. For genuine M&A cases , there should not be any restriction on transfer of resources. M&A activities are part and parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001 <+91%2092278%2086001>
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier < b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> 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
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 yangpf6@126.com
- 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.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- 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.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
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
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
Agreed. I do agree that there needs to be some protections to avoid abuse of the last /8 resources, but, there seems to be a policy failure elsewhere in APNIC in relation to the evaluation of M&A which is allowing abusive transactions to occur.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: 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 Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala rajesh@smartlinkindia.com wrote:
I partially support the policy. For genuine M&A cases , there should not be any restriction on transfer of resources. M&A activities are part and parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier < b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> 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
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 yangpf6@126.com
- 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.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- 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.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
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
Hi Skeeve and all,
Ahead of the upcoming policy SIG, I'd like to share more info about how APNIC secretariat evaluates M & A requests. As part of our due diligence check, we have the procedure to verify the authenticity of the M & A request documentations received. Circumstances where it's obvious to APNIC that the transaction is fraudulent or fabricated, to the best of our knowledge, APNIC will reject the transfer request and terminate membership as per the Membership agreement.
M & A can take many forms and it's difficult for APNIC to be the sole arbitrator to judge the motivations behind and decide if it is in good or bad faith.
thanks
George
On 1/2/18 2:42 am, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Agreed. I do agree that there needs to be some protections to avoid abuse of the last /8 resources, but, there seems to be a policy failure elsewhere in APNIC in relation to the evaluation of M&A which is allowing abusive transactions to occur.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; 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 Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala <rajesh@smartlinkindia.com mailto:rajesh@smartlinkindia.com> wrote:
I partially support the policy. For genuine M&A cases , there should not be any restriction on transfer of resources. M&A activities are part and parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place. regards, Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001 On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc <mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc>> 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 yangpf6@126.com <mailto:yangpf6@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 <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
Dear Proposer
I would like to clarify.
My understanding is: Prop-116 will be subject to the 103/8 IPv4 address which allocated before 14 Sep 2017 and be transferred after this proposal will consensus. It's mean that these address will be allowed to transfer "ONE-TIME".
Is it correct ?
Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki JPOPF Steering Team (former JPNIC Policy Working Group)
2018-01-26 12:27 GMT+09:00 Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@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
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 yangpf6@126.com
- 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.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- 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.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
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
Hi Alex,
- 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.
ftp://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/membership-agreement.txt
5 General ------------
5.1 APNIC Documents The Member agrees that: (a) The APNIC Documents may be amended from time to time in accordance with the Document Review Policy; (b) Any such amendments are binding upon the Member; (c) APNIC Documents as they exist from time to time form an integral part of and apply fully to this agreement; and
If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers.
You mean leasing? or resource holder gives away access to myapnic account
along with resources? because there is no such thing as underground transfer.
This will cause incorrect APNIC Whois data.
I appreciate your intentions.
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: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: 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 Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc
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
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 yangpf6@126.com
- 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.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- 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.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
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
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: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:40 AM To: Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@micrologic.nc Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net SIG List sig-policy@apnic.net 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: mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: http://eintellegonetworks.asia/ 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 Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc > 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
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 yangpf6@126.com mailto:yangpf6@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
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 mike@iptrading.com 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: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:40 AM To: Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net SIG List <sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net> 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: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; 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 <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> 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 yangpf6@126.com mailto:yangpf6@126.com
- 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.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- 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.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
“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.
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.
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.
Regards,
Mike
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:39 PM To: Mike Burns mike@iptrading.com Cc: Skeeve Stevens skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia; Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@micrologic.nc; sig-policy@apnic.net 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 <mike@iptrading.com mailto:mike@iptrading.com > 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: mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [ mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:40 AM To: Bertrand Cherrier < mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> Cc: mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net sig-policy@apnic.net SIG List < mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net sig-policy@apnic.net> 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: mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: http://eintellegonetworks.asia/ eintellegonetworks.asia
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve
Facebook: http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: https://twitter.com/eintellego eintellego
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve /in/skeeve ; Expert360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 Profile ; 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 < mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> 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 mailto:yangpf6@126.com yangpf6@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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
On Jan 31, 2018, at 11:52 , Mike Burns mike@iptrading.com 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:owen@delong.com mailto:owen@delong.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:39 PM To: Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com mailto:mike@iptrading.com> Cc: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia mailto:skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia>; Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc>; sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net 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 <mike@iptrading.com mailto:mike@iptrading.com> 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: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:40 AM To: Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net SIG List <sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net> 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: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; 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 <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> 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 yangpf6@126.com mailto:yangpf6@126.com
- 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.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- 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.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
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.cherrier@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
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 yangpf6@126.com
- 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.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- 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.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
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
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.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@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.tsurumaki@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.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@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 yangpf6@126.com mailto:yangpf6@126.com
- 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.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- 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.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- 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
Activity Summary
- 2042 days inactive
- 2042 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 10 participants
- 17 comments