Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8

  • To: sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8
  • From: "liuwei_177@sina.com" <liuwei_177@sina.com>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:27:01 +0800
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.net
  • 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>
  • References: <mailman.167068.1508137725.27668.sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>

    • M&A shouldn't be included in the proposal.  In this way, people's normal business will be seriously affected.



       
      Date: 2017-10-16 15:08
      Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8
       
      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:  sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 (? ??)
         2. Re:  sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7 (? ??)
       
       
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
       
      Message: 1
      Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 06:57:11 +0000
      From: ? ?? <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 5
      Message-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_615
       
      From: sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net>
      Date: 2017-10-14 10:00
      To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
      Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5
      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.  sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address
            allocated after the policy officially issued (Brown Kevin)
         2. Re:  sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the
            address allocated after the policy officially issued (Mike Burns)
         3. Re:  sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support
            prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years (Mike Burns)
       
       
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
       
      Message: 1
      Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:36:26 +0800
      From: Brown Kevin <kevin349873213@gmail.com>
      To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
      Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in
      the address allocated after the policy officially issued
      Message-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 officially
      issued.
      I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit
      term for 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract
      between members and NIRs or LIRs or APNIC.
      If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was
      applied befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract?
      I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the
      policy officially issued.
       
       
      Best Regards,
      Kevin
       
       
      ------------------------------
       
      Message: 2
      Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:48:05 -0400
      From: "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 issued
      Message-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 direct
      allocation?
      Are they exempted or grandfathered-in, or did they purchase something they
      expected to be resellable, only to find that option has been removed from
      them via policy change?
       
      I suggest, since APNIC has the records of 103 blocks which have already been
      transferred, that those blocks be explicitly treated as non-103 blocks,
      allowing those blocks to be re-transferred.  I am sure the number is small
      relative to the number of /22s in 103/8.
       
      While I understand the nature of 103/8 is different from other blocks, in
      general I am against waiting periods. They are designed to prevent
      "flipping", but in fact they cause grief for those whose business plans or
      environments change.  And they prevent normal market activities that I think
      would be good for the IPv4 market.
       
      For example, we have done almost 500 transfers, and we think we could be
      more efficient at the job of say, breaking down and selling a /16 as small
      blocks than most /16 holders would be. In exchange for this efficiency, we
      would extract profit. But holding-periods and needs-tests, imposed by
      registry stewards, preclude this efficiency from entering the market.  IPv4
      addresses are bought and sold every day, but artificial market restrictions
      warp the market to the detriment of  participants.  The purported reason for
      these restrictions is to prevent speculation and hoarding, none of which has
      appeared in the RIPE community, which is where it would be expected to
      appear, 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 Kevin
      Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:36 AM
      To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
      Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the
      address allocated after the policy officially issued
       
      There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, all
      the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially issued.
      I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit term for
      103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract between members and
      NIRs or LIRs or APNIC.
      If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was applied
      befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract?
      I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the policy
      officially issued.
       
       
      Best Regards,
      Kevin
      *              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
       
       
       
      ------------------------------
       
      Message: 3
      Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:38:48 -0400
      From: "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, Issue
      27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years
      Message-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,
       
      >Steven
       
      Hi Steven,
       
      Actually it?s:
       
       
      ARIN   1 year
       
      RIPE   2 years
       
      LACNIC 3 years
       
       
      And 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 list
      sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
      https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
       
      End 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: 2
      Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:08:39 +0000
      From: ? ?? <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 7
      Message-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_615
       
      From: sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net>
      Date: 2017-10-16 10:00
      To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
      Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7
      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:  sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support
            prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years (Ajai Kumar)
       
       
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
       
      Message: 1
      Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 12:40:00 +0530
      From: 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, Issue
      27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years
      Message-ID:
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
       
      I also support it for 2 years only.
      Regards,
      Ajai Kumar
       
      On 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) +91-9868477444
      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/20171015/16f7cedd/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 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 list
      sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
      https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
       
      End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8
      ******************************************