Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
I object this propasal. If M&A happend, there is no reason to prohobit the IP transfer.
________________________________ skylee_615
From: sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net Date: 2017-10-14 10:00 To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net
You can reach the person managing the list at sig-policy-owner@lists.apnic.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued (Brown Kevin) 2. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued (Mike Burns) 3. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years (Mike Burns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:36:26 +0800 From: Brown Kevin kevin349873213@gmail.com To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued Message-ID: CAF02+oforxxcRoCpsXHQojKEf812aioR8cwy0+tavYFJaBMscQ@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, all the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially issued. I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit term for 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract between members and NIRs or LIRs or APNIC. If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was applied befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract? I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the policy officially issued.
Best Regards, Kevin
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:48:05 -0400 From: "Mike Burns" mike@iptrading.com To: "'Brown Kevin'" kevin349873213@gmail.com, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued Message-ID: 007d01d34429$e593e860$b0bbb920$@iptrading.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
We have already brokered sales of 103 blocks in the past. What about those who have received 103 blocks via transfer and not direct allocation? Are they exempted or grandfathered-in, or did they purchase something they expected to be resellable, only to find that option has been removed from them via policy change?
I suggest, since APNIC has the records of 103 blocks which have already been transferred, that those blocks be explicitly treated as non-103 blocks, allowing those blocks to be re-transferred. I am sure the number is small relative to the number of /22s in 103/8.
While I understand the nature of 103/8 is different from other blocks, in general I am against waiting periods. They are designed to prevent "flipping", but in fact they cause grief for those whose business plans or environments change. And they prevent normal market activities that I think would be good for the IPv4 market.
For example, we have done almost 500 transfers, and we think we could be more efficient at the job of say, breaking down and selling a /16 as small blocks than most /16 holders would be. In exchange for this efficiency, we would extract profit. But holding-periods and needs-tests, imposed by registry stewards, preclude this efficiency from entering the market. IPv4 addresses are bought and sold every day, but artificial market restrictions warp the market to the detriment of participants. The purported reason for these restrictions is to prevent speculation and hoarding, none of which has appeared in the RIPE community, which is where it would be expected to appear, since RIPE removed the needs-test from transfers years ago.
I think five years is too long, and no waiting period at all is preferable.
Regards, Mike Burns
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Brown Kevin Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:36 AM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued
There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, all the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially issued. I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit term for 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract between members and NIRs or LIRs or APNIC. If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was applied befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract? I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the policy officially issued.
Best Regards, Kevin * 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
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:38:48 -0400 From: "Mike Burns" mike@iptrading.com To: "'steven.166'" steven.166@tom.com, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years Message-ID: 009a01d34430$fb1dceb0$f1596c10$@iptrading.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
As we know,RIPE NCC and ARIN have the similar 2 years limit for transfer.
We think 2 years limit is more reasonable.
It will make the policy more compatible with other RIRs.
Best Regards,
Steven
Hi Steven,
Actually it?s:
ARIN 1 year
RIPE 2 years
LACNIC 3 years
And we are conflating things. Here is my understanding:
ARIN has no ?final /8? policy, so the 1 year policy applies to all transfers except mergers and acquisitions.
RIPE?s has a ?final /8? policy, but still the 2 years applies to all transfers.
LACNIC?s 3 year policy applies to all direct allocations from LACNIC (not just final /8) , but not to resales of prior transfers.
But APNIC is considering a waiting period only on the 103 block, that would be inherently different from the other registries, so finding compatibility will be limited in any case.
Regards, Mike Burns
Yes, I also agree that M&A should be excluded in this policy.
On 16 October 2017 at 12:27, ? ?? skylee_615@hotmail.com wrote:
I object this propasal. If M&A happend, there is no reason to prohobit the IP transfer.
skylee_615
*From:* sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net *Date:* 2017-10-14 10:00 *To:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject:* sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net
You can reach the person managing the list at sig-policy-owner@lists.apnic.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."
Today's Topics:
- sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued (Brown Kevin)
- Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued (Mike Burns)
- Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years (Mike Burns)
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:36:26 +0800 From: Brown Kevin kevin349873213@gmail.com To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued Message-ID: CAF02+oforxxcRoCpsXHQojKEf812aioR8cwy0+tavYFJaBMscQ@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, all the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially issued. I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit term for 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract between members and NIRs or LIRs or APNIC. If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was applied befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract? I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the policy officially issued.
Best Regards, Kevin
Message: 2 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:48:05 -0400 From: "Mike Burns" mike@iptrading.com To: "'Brown Kevin'" kevin349873213@gmail.com, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued Message-ID: 007d01d34429$e593e860$b0bbb920$@iptrading.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
We have already brokered sales of 103 blocks in the past. What about those who have received 103 blocks via transfer and not direct allocation? Are they exempted or grandfathered-in, or did they purchase something they expected to be resellable, only to find that option has been removed from them via policy change?
I suggest, since APNIC has the records of 103 blocks which have already been transferred, that those blocks be explicitly treated as non-103 blocks, allowing those blocks to be re-transferred. I am sure the number is small relative to the number of /22s in 103/8.
While I understand the nature of 103/8 is different from other blocks, in general I am against waiting periods. They are designed to prevent "flipping", but in fact they cause grief for those whose business plans or environments change. And they prevent normal market activities that I think would be good for the IPv4 market.
For example, we have done almost 500 transfers, and we think we could be more efficient at the job of say, breaking down and selling a /16 as small blocks than most /16 holders would be. In exchange for this efficiency, we would extract profit. But holding-periods and needs-tests, imposed by registry stewards, preclude this efficiency from entering the market. IPv4 addresses are bought and sold every day, but artificial market restrictions warp the market to the detriment of participants. The purported reason for these restrictions is to prevent speculation and hoarding, none of which has appeared in the RIPE community, which is where it would be expected to appear, since RIPE removed the needs-test from transfers years ago.
I think five years is too long, and no waiting period at all is preferable.
Regards, Mike Burns
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Brown Kevin Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:36 AM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued
There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, all the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially issued. I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit term for 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract between members and NIRs or LIRs or APNIC. If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was applied befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract? I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the policy officially issued.
Best Regards, Kevin
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
Message: 3 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:38:48 -0400 From: "Mike Burns" mike@iptrading.com To: "'steven.166'" steven.166@tom.com, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years Message-ID: 009a01d34430$fb1dceb0$f1596c10$@iptrading.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
As we know,RIPE NCC and ARIN have the similar 2 years limit for transfer.
We think 2 years limit is more reasonable.
It will make the policy more compatible with other RIRs.
Best Regards,
Steven
Hi Steven,
Actually it?s:
ARIN 1 year
RIPE 2 years
LACNIC 3 years
And we are conflating things. Here is my understanding:
ARIN has no ?final /8? policy, so the 1 year policy applies to all transfers except mergers and acquisitions.
RIPE?s has a ?final /8? policy, but still the 2 years applies to all transfers.
LACNIC?s 3 year policy applies to all direct allocations from LACNIC (not just final /8) , but not to resales of prior transfers.
But APNIC is considering a waiting period only on the 103 block, that would be inherently different from the other registries, so finding compatibility will be limited in any case.
Regards, Mike Burns
Activity Summary
- 2178 days inactive
- 2178 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 2 participants
- 1 comments