Message: 1
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 06:15:03 +0000 (UTC)
From: skyone sky <adcsky@yahoo.com>
To: "sig-policy@lists.apnic.net" <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
Subject: [sig-policy] Don't support 5 years change of prop-116
Message-ID: <1487641857.324268.1508220903255@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It's a sudden change of this policy proposal. I don't support it because 5 years limitation for transfers is too strict.? I'm sure quite a lot members in the community? like me just knew or haven't known the proposal yet.? When we knew it, we don't like such
a crazy strict proposal...?
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:
<CAF02+oforxxcRoCpsXHQojKEf812aioR8cwy0+tavYFJaBMscQ@mail.gmail.com>
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.
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:
<CAL41znPnx_Liks4t95Ok0xRofzV3fdBpr3kWeoVyCkctqZ9y9w@mail.gmail.com>
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
>