Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-146: Aligning the Contrast" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the OPM.
The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). 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 appended below as well as available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-146
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-146-v001: Aligning the Contrast
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 3 of APNIC 127 - APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies have two broad sections. Section 3.1 talks about Goals of Resource Management and Section 3.2 talks about Policy Environment. Section 3.1 has currently eight sub sections which essentially are the eight goals of Resource Management.
Section 3.1.4 is titled as No Guarantee of contiguous delegation. The description in the section is about making an effort for contiguous delegation. Additionally, as an exception, it has been noted that there is no guarantee that it can be adhered all the time. The title of the section appears to be in contrast to the goal described in the section.
Section 3.1.8 is titled as Conflict of Goals. The subheading appears contradictory to the intent of section 3.1 as Conflict of Goals appears to be one of the goals of Resource Management. Herein, the intention is to provide a way out by balancing the needs wherein the goals appears to be in conflict with each other.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- The objective is to align the contrasting headings and descriptions therein.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- Not relevant
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Section 3.1.4 heading be changed from No Guarantee of contiguous delegation to Contiguous Delegation.
Section 3.1.8 heading be changed from Conflict of Goals to Balancing the goals. Another policy option herein can be to completely deprecate the section. The reasons are mentioned below.
There are three paragraphs in the section. The first paragraph – “The goals described above will often conflict with each other, or with the needs of individual IRs or end-users. All IRs evaluating requests for address space must make judgments, seeking to balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet community as a whole.” Is already covered in the opening paragraph of Section 3.0 wherein it states “responsible management involves balancing a set of sometimes competing goals.” As such the first paragraph can be completely removed.
The second paragraph states that – “This document is intended to help IRs perform their role in consistent and equitable ways. IRs must maintain full documentation of and transparency within the decision-making process.” This can be moved to the opening statement of Section 3.0.
The third paragraph states that – “In IPv6 address policy, the goal of aggregation is considered to be the most important.”. This can be moved to section 3.1.3.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: The contrasting heading and explanations in the paragraphs if corrected will allow to remove the contradictions and present a seamless document.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None.
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-146-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-146
This proposal appears to be straightforward.
APNIC notes the change in Section headings 3.1.4 and 3.1.8 of the APNIC Internet Number Resources document, but the meaning of the section remains unchanged.
APNIC also notes that Section 3.1.8 should be deprecated, and that moving the second paragraph from this section to Section 3.0 and the third paragraph to Section 3.1.3 is not an issue. However, removing the first paragraph entirely may cause confusion about how competing interests are considered.
This proposal would not require any system changes.
If this proposal reaches consensus, implementation can be completed within 3 months.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:57 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-146: Aligning the Contrast" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the OPM.
The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). 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 appended below as well as available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-146Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-146-v001: Aligning the Contrast
Proposer: Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 3 of APNIC 127 - APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies have two broad sections. Section 3.1 talks about Goals of Resource Management and Section 3.2 talks about Policy Environment. Section 3.1 has currently eight sub sections which essentially are the eight goals of Resource Management.
Section 3.1.4 is titled as No Guarantee of contiguous delegation. The description in the section is about making an effort for contiguous delegation. Additionally, as an exception, it has been noted that there is no guarantee that it can be adhered all the time. The title of the section appears to be in contrast to the goal described in the section.
Section 3.1.8 is titled as Conflict of Goals. The subheading appears contradictory to the intent of section 3.1 as Conflict of Goals appears to be one of the goals of Resource Management. Herein, the intention is to provide a way out by balancing the needs wherein the goals appears to be in conflict with each other.
- Objective of policy change
The objective is to align the contrasting headings and descriptions therein.
- Situation in other regions
Not relevant
- Proposed policy solution
Section 3.1.4 heading be changed from No Guarantee of contiguous delegation to Contiguous Delegation.
Section 3.1.8 heading be changed from Conflict of Goals to Balancing the goals. Another policy option herein can be to completely deprecate the section. The reasons are mentioned below.
There are three paragraphs in the section. The first paragraph – “The goals described above will often conflict with each other, or with the needs of individual IRs or end-users. All IRs evaluating requests for address space must make judgments, seeking to balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet community as a whole.” Is already covered in the opening paragraph of Section 3.0 wherein it states “responsible management involves balancing a set of sometimes competing goals.” As such the first paragraph can be completely removed.
The second paragraph states that – “This document is intended to help IRs perform their role in consistent and equitable ways. IRs must maintain full documentation of and transparency within the decision-making process.” This can be moved to the opening statement of Section 3.0.
The third paragraph states that – “In IPv6 address policy, the goal of aggregation is considered to be the most important.”. This can be moved to section 3.1.3.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages: The contrasting heading and explanations in the paragraphs if corrected will allow to remove the contradictions and present a seamless document.
Disadvantages: None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Dear Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team..
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-146, based on a meeting we organised on 29th Aug to discuss these proposals.
Many neutral opinions were expressed about this proposal.
(comment details) - I understand that there is some divergence between the title and its content, but I don't see the need to change the title.
Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team
2022年8月11日(木) 15:58 chku chku@twnic.tw:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-146: Aligning the Contrast" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the OPM.
The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). 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 appended below as well as available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-146Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-146-v001: Aligning the Contrast
Proposer: Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 3 of APNIC 127 - APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies have two broad sections. Section 3.1 talks about Goals of Resource Management and Section 3.2 talks about Policy Environment. Section 3.1 has currently eight sub sections which essentially are the eight goals of Resource Management.
Section 3.1.4 is titled as No Guarantee of contiguous delegation. The description in the section is about making an effort for contiguous delegation. Additionally, as an exception, it has been noted that there is no guarantee that it can be adhered all the time. The title of the section appears to be in contrast to the goal described in the section.
Section 3.1.8 is titled as Conflict of Goals. The subheading appears contradictory to the intent of section 3.1 as Conflict of Goals appears to be one of the goals of Resource Management. Herein, the intention is to provide a way out by balancing the needs wherein the goals appears to be in conflict with each other.
- Objective of policy change
The objective is to align the contrasting headings and descriptions therein.
- Situation in other regions
Not relevant
- Proposed policy solution
Section 3.1.4 heading be changed from No Guarantee of contiguous delegation to Contiguous Delegation.
Section 3.1.8 heading be changed from Conflict of Goals to Balancing the goals. Another policy option herein can be to completely deprecate the section. The reasons are mentioned below.
There are three paragraphs in the section. The first paragraph – “The goals described above will often conflict with each other, or with the needs of individual IRs or end-users. All IRs evaluating requests for address space must make judgments, seeking to balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet community as a whole.” Is already covered in the opening paragraph of Section 3.0 wherein it states “responsible management involves balancing a set of sometimes competing goals.” As such the first paragraph can be completely removed.
The second paragraph states that – “This document is intended to help IRs perform their role in consistent and equitable ways. IRs must maintain full documentation of and transparency within the decision-making process.” This can be moved to the opening statement of Section 3.0.
The third paragraph states that – “In IPv6 address policy, the goal of aggregation is considered to be the most important.”. This can be moved to section 3.1.3.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages: The contrasting heading and explanations in the paragraphs if corrected will allow to remove the contradictions and present a seamless document.
Disadvantages: None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Activity Summary
- 385 days inactive
- 385 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 3 participants
- 2 comments