Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region,

    • To: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
    • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG
    • From: Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurumaki at g.softbank dot co dot jp>
    • Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 15:32:56 +0900
    • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=g-softbank-co-jp.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JkJ9+DVPHtQEazqh+ydNHNxVPlUsxbdzWsdvmpGOz3c=; b=j23U2sfipZugZp+dSzO54QU6BWb/EfmgZg7q/3VVycM5ymrUozvsEZPsBgLgKMI7F7 x1DKRAMaYlLqHnZbfCsA6Ge3fE2yvtOkZxu8jN0LfyKsKiGwCcN/L03psjy8tFPkKI/z /FmylpyqE4r8ydf9Q1F2HsmDaG8KyWr0t5ooCC69Y4amTWPHlorw3NrVxpaFGI+IBCom RzFwyhlBjgvvEijv+p8BZkcB/cPVtU6nbQARwXlyVv1LoQmJl9y5PfYuvGLjRrX8M7JQ SZGoctpwVau3eUruPnpHtZn0WQNR6koc2nLp+iTfRODiO3qUUtofoVvhjfJzKJzA29ej EkzA==
    • In-reply-to: <1502259229.62011.chku at twnic dot net dot tw>
    • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
    • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
    • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
    • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
    • List-subscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
    • List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
      • 
        
        I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan.
        
        I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-118,
        based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.
        
        
        Mixed opinions were expressed on this proposal.
        
        Some participants were against the entire proposal. OTOH, there were
        some who supported the need to remove needs based justification within
        the APNIC region, while against justifying 50% use of transfer block
        within 5 years.
        
        Below are details of different opinions expressed.
        
        Concerns/Opposing comments:
        * Strong concern expressed over impact on the transfer with ARIN region.
        If transfer with ARIN will not be allowed by removing needs based
        criteria, cannot support this proposal.(*)
        
        (*) Additional Note:
        It is acknowledged that RIPE region transfer with ARIN with the same
        criteria as prop-118. It should resolve this concern if there is an
        explicit confirmation from ARIN that the same approach will be
        applicable to APNIC region
        
        * IP address should be distributed to those who need it, therefore
        against removing needs based criteria
        
        * Justifying 50% use within 5 years do not seem like meaningful
        criteria. It is hard for applicants to speculate the needs for 5 years
        (too long ahead) and it is also hard to evaluate the application. It
        may not be a meaningful check despite the time and effort it takes for
        both applicant and registry.
        
        * Concern expressed over abuse in the use of address space if both
        this proposal and prop-119 are adopted
        
        
        Supportive Comment:
        * If the role of registry is to be a record keeper in transfers of
        resources, and both the source and recipient both agree, we can remove
        needs based criteria
        
        
        Best Regards,
        
        
        Satoru Tsurumaki
        Policy Working Group
        Japan Open Policy Forum
        
        2017-08-09 15:13 GMT+09:00 chku <chku at twnic dot net dot tw>:
        > Dear SIG members
        >
        > The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at
        > APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
        >
        > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will
        > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September
        > 2017.
        >
        > Information about the proposal is available from:
        >
        >     http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
        >
        > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
        >
        >  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
        >  - 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?
        >
        > Please find the text of the proposal below.
        >
        > Kind Regards,
        >
        > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
        > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
        >
        >
        > -------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
        >
        > -------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > Proposer:       David Hilario
        >                 d.hilario at laruscloudservice dot 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-chair mailing list
        > Sig-policy-chair at apnic dot net
        > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
        >
        > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
        > _______________________________________________
        > sig-policy mailing list
        > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
        > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy