Dear all,

The policy proposal was referred to the next APNIC meeting due to lack of support from the community, the show of hands in support and opposition in the room was in the low count.

I would like to ask any remote participant on the list interested about this proposal who have not yet to come forward to please do so and show your support or opposition.

Confer software was showing a large disproportionate support compared to the support in the room.

During the session it was mention that people were "gaming the conf software", which is not acceptable.

I therefore ask for 2 things from APNIC secretariat

1.

APNIC secretariat please release any supporting information about the suspicion of system gaming, this is a very severe accusation against the APNIC community at large, denouncing whoever was behind that should be done.

2.

Did other proposal get affected in the same manner?

David Hilario

IP Manager

Larus Cloud Service Limited

p: +852 29888918  m: +359 89 764 1784
f: +852 29888068
a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
w: laruscloudservice.net/uk 
e: d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net

On 1 March 2017 at 06:05, David Hilario <d.hilario@outsideheaven.com> wrote:

Hi Hiroki,

The recipient receiving the address space will be under the APNIC policies in place, which mean they should be using the address space to number their network or their customers network. 

So the received space is for them to use for their own network or customers.

David Hilario

IP Manager

Larus Cloud Service Limited

p: +852 29888918  m: +359 89 764 1784
f: +852 29888068
a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
w: laruscloudservice.net/uk 
e: d.hilario@outsideheaven.com

On 1 March 2017 at 04:27, Hiroki Kawabata <kawabata@nic.ad.jp> wrote:

Dear David,

We support this proposal in general but we'd like to confirm about your proposal.

Under the current transfer policy, we understand transferred address space are to be used
by the recipient of the transfer, and not for re-sale purpose without use by the recipient.

Please let me confirm that this remains unchanged under this policy proposal,
i.e., the transfer policy is *not* for re-sale.

Regards,
Hiroki

---
Hiroki Kawabata(kawabata@nic.ad.jp)
Hostmaster, IP Address Department
Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)


Subject: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
From: Sumon Ahmed Sabir <sumon@fiberathome.net>
Date: Tue Jan 31 2017 19:44:58 GMT+0900

Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.

It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 43 in Ho Chi
Minh City, Viet Nam on Wednesday, 1 March 2017.

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-118

Regards

Masato, Sumon
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


-------------------------------------------------------

prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region

-------------------------------------------------------

Proposer:       David Hilario
                d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net


1. Problem statement
-------------------------------------------------------

Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the
recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend
to transfer.

Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to
enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming
from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect
the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.


2. Objective of policy change
-------------------------------------------------------

Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
Ease some administration on APNIC staff.


3. Situation in other regions
-------------------------------------------------------

RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first
allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their
intended use of the resources .

ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.

AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource
request from AFRINIC based on needs.

LACNIC, no transfers, need based request.

Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer
policies,  ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy
from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE
region.


4. Proposed policy solution
-------------------------------------------------------

Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility:

 - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its
   service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating
   to transfers within its service region.

 - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to
   have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the
   APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within
   5 years.

source:
    https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644


5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-------------------------------------------------------

Advantages:

 - Harmonisation with RIPE region.
 - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and between APNIC
   and RIPE.
 - maintains a compatibility with ARIN.
 - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected based on
   potentially badly documented needs.
 - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff.

Disadvantages:

none.


6. Impact on resource holders
-------------------------------------------------------
None


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

* 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