So define it better. This could be undertaken by the EC outside the scope of policy IMHO.
...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; Twitter: eintellego <https://twitter.com/eintellego> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@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 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala <raj...@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.cherr...@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 >>> yang...@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 >
* 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
