I'm not in support of this proposal. It doesn't address ARIN region concerns
that have prevented previous like-minded policies from succeeding. I'm
confused as to why the authors didn't try to influence a similar, existing,
global policy that accomplishes much of the same thing. prop-086-v003 has
made it to all regions. It was passed in the ARIN region and has some level
of support in other regions. The APNIC region rejected a previous version
and has had little discussion on a post discussion version that addressed
most of the APNIC region concerns.
Personally, I'm not sure that the IANA will ever see an address from any
legacy holder or RIR and we ought to abandon all of these proposals
forthwith as they are distracting all of us from worthwhile work.
Subsequently, I've withdrawn my support for prop-086-v003.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
prop-097: Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms
by the IANA
_______________________________________________________________________
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage
you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy
SIG.
Regards,
Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence
Proposal summary
This proposal describes the process that IANA will follow to allocate
IPv4 resources to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) after the central
pool of addresses is exhausted.
The processes for how IPv4 space may be placed in the IANA Recovered
IPv4 Pool is out of the scope of this proposal.
Discussion statistics
Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 25 January 2011
Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 20 February 2011
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 6
Number of people participating in discussions: 3
Summary of discussion to date
- The requirement for an RIR to put into the pool before it can
withdraw, was queried and subsequently removed in Version 2.
- Following a query, the word log was removed in Version 2, to
clarify that the reporting process for resources re-allocated under this
proposal would be in the form of a registry.
- There was concern that it would take at least one year for this
proposal to achieve consensus in all RIR regions.
- It was pointed out that this proposal does not address the issue
of transfers, "the primary reason that ARIN rejected the mandatory
return clause of prop-069 was this transfer issue and the need to uphold
the values expressed in RFC 2050 (namely needs-based resource allocation)."
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-097
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk1kaHMACgkQSo7fU26F3X2LjQCeJYRwDUdZvi7PFRX8ClWYuzrS
IUQAn26JK06m8COSaYcu13scMwm/YhHi
=YGbc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
