From: Tsurumaki, SatoruDate: 2018-02-01 11:10To: yangpf6@126.comSubject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10Dear AlexThank you for your clarification !I understand this policy and personally support it.Satoru2018-01-31 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 TsurumakiBBIX, Inc