Dear Alex
Thank you for your clarification !
I understand this policy and personally support it.
Satoru
2018-01-31 19:09 GMT+09:00 yangpf6@126.com <yangpf6@126.com>:
> Dear Satoru
>
> Thank you for your understanding , and for the second problem : Not
> only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right !!!
>
> My suggestion is :
>
> M&A is ineluctable , and NO one know when it will happen from what
> entities , and even one company may have more than one M&A
>
> So my proposal is for the IPv4 Blocks allocated before prop-116 , and
> for the M&A situation, should have the equal right with others (Not only
> one-time)
>
> Other IPv4 blocks allocated after prop-116 or other situation should
> strictly obey the policy . Sorry maybe there were some mistakes for my
> explaination last time.
>
>
> ________________________________
> Alex Yang
>
>
> From: Satoru Tsurumaki
> Date: 2018-01-31 09:49
> To: yangpf6@126.com; sig-policy
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10
> Dear Alex
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
>> In my opinion, any entity got the ipv4 blocks in 103/8 before 14 Sep 2017
>> should have the same right to use or transfer its blocks like others.
>
> I also think that their rights should be respected.
> But,
>
>
>> Not only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right , thank you very
>> much !!!
>
> The recipient entities who are transferred 103/8 after 14 Sep 2017 know
> prop-116.
> I believe they have no right to transfer a 103/8 because they understand 5
> years limitation and transferred it.
> So, I think the number of transfer of 103/8 before 14 Sep 2017 should be
> limited to one.
>
> Would you please give us your opinion ?
>
>
>
> BTW,
> About 60%+ 103/8 has already allocated.
> Therefore, the consensus of prop-123 means a substantial abolition of
> prop-116.
> We need re-think why prop-116 was consensus.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Satoru Tsurumaki
>
>
>
> 2018-01-29 20:09 GMT+09:00 yangpf6@126.com <yangpf6@126.com>:
>>
>> Dear Satoru
>>
>> Thank you for your question, and i mean it is really a good
>> question!
>>
>> In my opinion, any entity got the ipv4 blocks in 103/8 before 14
>> Sep 2017 should have the same right to use or transfer its blocks like
>> others.
>>
>> Not only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right , thank you
>> very much !!!
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Alex Yang
>>
>>
>> From: sig-policy-request
>> Date: 2018-01-29 18:30
>> To: sig-policy
>> Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10
>> 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. Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
>> (Satoru Tsurumaki)
>> 2. Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy (Ajai Kumar)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:03:38 +0900
>> From: Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp>
>> To: SIG policy <sig-policy@apnic.net>
>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
>> policy
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAHXx+kQbpTnRduVLdTZKnyDhno0aqxHq4SbYxUqP8TMkq-VGzw@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20180129/533be3d9/attachment.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:00:44 +0530
>> From: Ajai Kumar <joinajay1@gmail.com>
>> To: Sanjeev Gupta <sanjeev@dcs1.biz>
>> Cc: sig-policy <sig-policy@apnic.net>
>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer
>> policy
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAL41znM5ws5j+tu6f0StdxMzhQpT_mgFEJLONHABduTeWgnHqw@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > * 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> (M) +91-9868477444
>> Skype ID:erajay
>> P-mail: joinajay1 at gmail.com
>> .................................
>> Please don't print this email unless you really need to. This will
>> preserve
>> trees on our planet.
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20180129/68ae089f/attachment.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>> End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10
>> *******************************************
>>
>>
>> * 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
--
--
Satoru Tsurumaki
BBIX, Inc