Hi Sunny, all,
Some of the topics that you mention, have been already resolved in other RIRs, as there were similar issues. In fact, I authored a few policy proposals about some of them.
In a quick review of your presentation, I see that many of them are really easy to resolve. They are not "editorial" in the sense of typos or grammar, but inconsistencies among different parts of the policy "manual" and, the most important thing, I believe they are non-contentious (so "should not" have objections which create lack of consensus, lengthy discussions, etc.).
For example, in a quick look, some of those that I believe aren't contentious:
0) Overall: Improve definitions, ensure they are in a single section?
1) End-Site vs end-user
2) 5.31, 5.32, 5.3.3 unify?
3) 5.6 and 5.6.1 repetitive, delete last one
4) Utilization vs usage rate
5) Agree with transfers in a single place
6) LIR assignment for their own infrastructure doesn't look as a real need in IPv6?
7) 5.2.1 assignment window for LIRs Second Opinion Request
9) I don't think we need IPv6 guidelines ... anymore, having policies and guidelines is making it more complex
10) No need for experimental IPv4 resources anymore?
11) ASNs 12.4 vs 13.0 - rewording or clarification needed
We shouldn't make this very complex or take a long time to resolve them. I will say that by the next on-line meeting, should be sorted out, at least for those issues that aren't contentious.
I just started a document with a proposal for all them. I will try to finish it this afternoon.
However, I think if we can circulate in the list each topic, we can "see" if anyone is objecting to any of the issues, before making a formal proposal. This way we can split the issues in those that are "non-contentious" and those that "may have some objections". Even if the APNIC PDP is used to ask questions for separate parts of a single proposal, we can make it much easier having ONE proposal for the "non-contentious", and then individual proposals for each of the "contentious" ones.
We can try to determine if any of the issues is "contentious" by circulating in the sig-policy list each of the points. This will only work if the people decide to *actively* participate, in such way that for example, every week (more or less), from now to the next meeting (actually a couple of months before it, at least), so we have a clear view of points to "exclude" from the "non-contentious proposal".
*Otherwise*, if people are not willing to contribute actively, we don't waste anyone time and I just fire a proposal tomorrow.
Now, while I'm happy to take over this task myself, I will prefer doing this with other folks. May be people that never participated in policy proposals before and want to take advantage of the experience?
So, I will ask once more: Anyone interested to contribute (you can email me in private if you prefer so)?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
