Hi Satoru,
Tks for your inputs. It will be good if you can comment on the emails that I just responded.
Key question is if we don't believe that 12 months is sufficient, would you agree with 18-months, or do you suggest any additional improvements to the proposal?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2/9/22, 7:13, "Tsurumaki, Satoru" stsuruma@bbix.net escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team..
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-145,
based on a meeting we organised on 29th Aug to discuss these proposals.
Many support opinions were expressed about this proposal.
And in response to a comment that HRM activities in Japan might be
helpful, JPNIC staff reported on their activities in Japan.
- Start Dec.2014
- Contact resource holders by any means possible, email, phone, mail,
referral from an acquaintance, etc.
- Finish 19th Mar 2019 with the signing of the contract with all
resource Holders.
(comment details)
- There are many unresponses to contacts from APNIC, which may have
a significant impact when it comes to consensus.
- It would be better to explain HRM's past activities for new members
for more understanding.
- I support this proposal, but it will be necessary to response carefully
to the resource holders
Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team
2022年8月11日(木) 16:00 chku chku@twnic.tw:
>
> Dear SIG members,
>
> The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
> sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
> Thursday, 15 September 2022.
>
> https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
>
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> before the OPM.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important
> part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). 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 appended below as well as available at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
>
> Regards,
> Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
> Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
> --------------------
> Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
>
> The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
>
> Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> -----------------------------
> Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
>
> If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
>
> One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
>
> To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> -----------------------------
> In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---------------------------
> Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
>
> Actual text:
> 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
> To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
>
> To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
>
> Proposed text:
> 4.3. Historical Resources Management
> Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
>
> Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
>
> Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
> Actual text:
> 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
> To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
>
> To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
>
> Proposed text:
> 4.3. Historical Resources Management
> Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
>
> Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
>
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> -----------------------------
> Advantages:
> Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
>
> Disadvantages:
> None.
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
> -----------------------------
> None.
>
>
> 7. References
> -------------
> None.
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
--
Satoru Tsurumaki
BBIX, Inc
_______________________________________________
sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.