From: sig-policy-requestDate: 2017-10-16 15:08To: sig-policySubject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8Send sig-policy mailing list submissions tosig-policy@lists.apnic.netTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visithttps://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policyor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' tosig-policy-request@lists.apnic.netYou can reach the person managing the list atsig-policy-owner@lists.apnic.netWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."Today's Topics:1. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 (? ??)2. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7 (? ??)----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 06:57:11 +0000From: ? ?? <skylee_615@hotmail.com>To: "sig-policy@lists.apnic.net" <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5Message-ID:Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"I object this propasal. If M&A happend, there is no reason to prohobit the IP transfer.________________________________skylee_615From: sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net>Date: 2017-10-14 10:00To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5Send sig-policy mailing list submissions tosig-policy@lists.apnic.netTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visithttps://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policyor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' tosig-policy-request@lists.apnic.netYou can reach the person managing the list atsig-policy-owner@lists.apnic.netWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."Today's Topics:1. sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the addressallocated after the policy officially issued (Brown Kevin)2. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in theaddress allocated after the policy officially issued (Mike Burns)3. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--supportprop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years (Mike Burns)----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:36:26 +0800From: Brown Kevin <kevin349873213@gmail.com>To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netSubject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply inthe address allocated after the policy officially issuedMessage-ID:Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition,all the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officiallyissued.I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibitterm for 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contractbetween members and NIRs or LIRs or APNIC.If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which wasapplied befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract?I think this policy should only apply the address applied after thepolicy officially issued.Best Regards,Kevin------------------------------Message: 2Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:48:05 -0400From: "Mike Burns" <mike@iptrading.com>To: "'Brown Kevin'" <kevin349873213@gmail.com>,<sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27---apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issuedMessage-ID: <007d01d34429$e593e860$b0bbb920$@iptrading.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"We have already brokered sales of 103 blocks in the past.What about those who have received 103 blocks via transfer and not directallocation?Are they exempted or grandfathered-in, or did they purchase something theyexpected to be resellable, only to find that option has been removed fromthem via policy change?I suggest, since APNIC has the records of 103 blocks which have already beentransferred, that those blocks be explicitly treated as non-103 blocks,allowing those blocks to be re-transferred. I am sure the number is smallrelative to the number of /22s in 103/8.While I understand the nature of 103/8 is different from other blocks, ingeneral I am against waiting periods. They are designed to prevent"flipping", but in fact they cause grief for those whose business plans orenvironments change. And they prevent normal market activities that I thinkwould be good for the IPv4 market.For example, we have done almost 500 transfers, and we think we could bemore efficient at the job of say, breaking down and selling a /16 as smallblocks than most /16 holders would be. In exchange for this efficiency, wewould extract profit. But holding-periods and needs-tests, imposed byregistry stewards, preclude this efficiency from entering the market. IPv4addresses are bought and sold every day, but artificial market restrictionswarp the market to the detriment of participants. The purported reason forthese restrictions is to prevent speculation and hoarding, none of which hasappeared in the RIPE community, which is where it would be expected toappear, since RIPE removed the needs-test from transfers years ago.I think five years is too long, and no waiting period at all is preferable.Regards,Mike Burns-----Original Message-----From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net[mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Brown KevinSent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:36 AMTo: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netSubject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in theaddress allocated after the policy officially issuedThere is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, allthe allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially issued.I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit term for103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract between members andNIRs or LIRs or APNIC.If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was appliedbefeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract?I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the policyofficially issued.Best Regards,Kevin* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*_______________________________________________sig-policy mailing listsig-policy@lists.apnic.nethttps://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy------------------------------Message: 3Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:38:48 -0400From: "Mike Burns" <mike@iptrading.com>To: "'steven.166'" <steven.166@tom.com>, <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 yearsMessage-ID: <009a01d34430$fb1dceb0$f1596c10$@iptrading.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8">As we know,RIPE NCC and ARIN have the similar 2 years limit for transfer.>We think 2 years limit is more reasonable.>It will make the policy more compatible with other RIRs.>Best Regards,>StevenHi Steven,Actually it?s:ARIN 1 yearRIPE 2 yearsLACNIC 3 yearsAnd we are conflating things. Here is my understanding:ARIN has no ?final /8? policy, so the 1 year policy applies to all transfers except mergers and acquisitions.RIPE?s has a ?final /8? policy, but still the 2 years applies to all transfers.LACNIC?s 3 year policy applies to all direct allocations from LACNIC (not just final /8) , but not to resales of prior transfers.But APNIC is considering a waiting period only on the 103 block, that would be inherently different from the other registries, so finding compatibility will be limited in any case.Regards,Mike Burns-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171013/7df6bcec/attachment.html>------------------------------_______________________________________________sig-policy mailing listsig-policy@lists.apnic.nethttps://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policyEnd of sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5******************************************-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171016/c4f2e6ae/attachment.html>------------------------------Message: 2Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:08:39 +0000From: ? ?? <skylee_615@hotmail.com>To: "sig-policy@lists.apnic.net" <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7Message-ID:Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"I object this propasal. If M&A happend, there is no reason to prohobit the IP transfer.________________________________skylee_615From: sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net>Date: 2017-10-16 10:00To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7Send sig-policy mailing list submissions tosig-policy@lists.apnic.netTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visithttps://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policyor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' tosig-policy-request@lists.apnic.netYou can reach the person managing the list atsig-policy-owner@lists.apnic.netWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."Today's Topics:1. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--supportprop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years (Ajai Kumar)----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 12:40:00 +0530From: Ajai Kumar <joinajay1@gmail.com>To: Rajesh Panwala <rajesh@smartlinkindia.com>Cc: "steven.166" <steven.166@tom.com>, "sig-policy@lists.apnic.net"<sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 yearsMessage-ID:Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"I also support it for 2 years only.Regards,Ajai KumarOn 14 October 2017 at 19:34, Rajesh Panwala <rajesh@smartlinkindia.com>wrote:> Dear Team>> Policy in sync with other RIR, is more reasonable. I also think 2 years is> appropriate.>> Rajesh Panwala>> On 13-Oct-2017 11:35 AM, "steven.166" <steven.166@tom.com> wrote:>>> *Dear all,*>>>> As we know,RIPE NCC and ARIN have the similar 2 years limit for transfer.>>>> We think 2 years limit is more reasonable.>> It will make the policy more compatible with other RIRs.>>>>>> Best Regards,>>>> Steven>>>> ???-???????????????? <http://mail.tom.com/webmail-static/welcomesxy.html>>> * 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) +91-9868477444Skype ID:erajayP-mail: joinajay1 at gmail.com.................................Please don't print this email unless you really need to. This will preservetrees on our planet.-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171015/16f7cedd/attachment.html>------------------------------_______________________________________________sig-policy mailing listsig-policy@lists.apnic.nethttps://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policyEnd of sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7******************************************-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171016/573fc896/attachment.html>------------------------------_______________________________________________sig-policy mailing listsig-policy@lists.apnic.nethttps://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policyEnd of sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8******************************************