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] 
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> 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] 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.
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve
Facebook: eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego
LinkedIn: /in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile ; 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
 
 
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
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