Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Hello sig-policy,
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to express our concern about prop-050.
We understand that the proposal as it is currently written and is in last call, requires no justification from an organisation that will receive a transfer from another organisation. It also states that the implementation of the proposal, if accepted, is immediate. In other words, as soon as the APNIC community accepts the proposal and the secretariat implements it, it will be a policy in effect.
We know that there are other policy proposals (prop-071 and 072) to prevent abuse of prop-050, but we are still concerned about this because of the possibilities of abuse before prop-071 and 072 are implemented (assuming they reach consensus)
One case that worries us is the case where Organisation A receives an allocation from APNIC, transfers it to Organisation B, request another allocation from APNIC, transfer it again, etc. This will result in increased usage rate of the APNIC address pools. As a result APNIC will need to request more address space from IANA, and IANA will run out of IPv4 addresses quicker. This kind of hoarding has effects outside of the APNIC region.
It might never happen, but in theory someone could do this if I understand the policy correctly. The possibility of draining the IANA pool is what worries us.
We also understand that the current text of the proposal enables Inter- RIR transfers. Prop-050 states that this will happen "following the policies of all the respective RIRs". We are not clear on how APNIC will implement this and what effects this will have on other RIRs. We don't have an Inter-RIR transfer policy at this time. What would happen (for example) if an organisation approaches APNIC with a request to transfer RIPE address space to an APNIC RIR. Can APNIC still prevent that transfer from happening? If not, this would make it possible that space from other regions is hoarded in the APNIC service region.
Inter-RIR transfers is not even a concept yet that is discussed in other regions. Because it is "between" RIRs, we believe it is a matter that requires coordination and discussion beyond a specific region. We think a globally-coordinated policy discussion will be best to have for this kind of topic.
I know that a lot of these issues have already been raised on the mailing list in the past months, but I hope you can understand our concern. Implementing prop-050 before prop-071 and/or prop-072 can be implemented leaves a big loop hole that could have effects outside the APNIC region.
Thank you for listening, Sander Steffann RIPE Address Policy Working Group co-chair
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to express our concern about prop-050.
this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? this was discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?
randy
Hello Randy,
Randy Bush schreef:
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to express our concern about prop-050.
this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? this was discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?
Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE APWG mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)
We just wanted to bring those concerns to your attention. We are not part of the APNIC policy development process, so do with them as you wish :)
We just hope you understand our worries. Sander
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to express our concern about prop-050.
this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? this was discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?
Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE APWG mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)
so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for your input.
randy
FWIW, I share these concerns.
-Scott
On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to express our concern about prop-050.
this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? this was discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?
Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE APWG mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)
so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for your input.
randy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
FWIW, I share these concerns.
from reading your ARIN PPML list, there is no consensus and utter vituperatibe chaos. please do not export it. thank you.
randy
But in my opinion, he is still entitled to have an opinion on APNIC policy and to support anyone else's opinion/comments/position.
I think anyone who holds a position on something related to the topic and that their comments politely delivered is welcome to make them.
As Tallentyre wrote on Voltaire, 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'.
We need to support people who have an interest in our policies, feeling free to comment on them... if we don't they will simply unsubscribe, not care, and give their wisdom elsewhere - perhaps to the point that their opinions will be formed without consideration for what we are doing within our space.
...Skeeve
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2009 8:59 AM To: Scott Leibrand Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
FWIW, I share these concerns.
from reading your ARIN PPML list, there is no consensus and utter vituperatibe chaos. please do not export it. thank you.
randy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policysig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
But in my opinion, he is still entitled to have an opinion on APNIC policy and to support anyone else's opinion/comments/position.
certainly. but what his message very clearly said was that he was speaking for the ripe address policy wg.
From: Sander Steffann sander@steffann.nl Subject: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:23:03 +0200
Hello sig-policy,
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to express our concern about prop-050.
randy
Hi Randy,
certainly. but what his message very clearly said was that he was speaking for the ripe address policy wg.
Yes, that part of the message was (unintentionally) badly worded.
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to express our concern about prop-050.
You were right when you asked me if this was an official statement of a RIPE working group: it was not. I should have made it clear that we were not sending this message as a result of discussion in our working group, but as a result of a discussion between the working group chairs. Sorry for that.
- Sander
Before I make any comments regarding the potential for a "gap" in regulation (and people capitalising on it) between the implementation of Prop-050 and the possible implementation of Prop-071/072 (assuming consensus) perhaps we might consider the timelines for the secretariat to implement and enact the policies.
From what I recall APNIC said it would take 6 months to implement Prop-50 after EC endorsement.
I'm guessing that since Prop-071/072 are modifications to Prop-50 in re-application/allocation times (in essence) I would think that if consensus for them was reached at APNIC28, they could be implemented immediately after EC endorsement.
So my presumption is that due to the 6 months implementation time of Prop-50. Prop071 and 072 could be implemented at the same time.(*)
(*) Yes, this means that prop071/072 are in a win/loss state - if they don't reach consensus at APNIC28 they are pretty well done for.
APNIC secretariat, can you please clarify if my reading of the timelines is correct and provide the exact dates when items fall due?
Cheers Terry
On 16/04/2009, at 8:43 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
FWIW, I share these concerns.
-Scott
On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to express our concern about prop-050.
this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? this was discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?
Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE APWG mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)
so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for your input.
randy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hello Terry
You are correct in remembering that the Secretariat had posted to this list that if a proposal like prop-050 were to become policy, it would take six months after EC to implement it. As stated in that earlier post, that timeline could change a little once we create a detailed implementation plan. Implementation usually takes around 3 months, but can happen sooner or later, depending on the complexities of implementation. We have had policies implemented within days of EC endorsement (for example, prop-041) and policies that have taken as long as 11 months to implement (for example, prop-007).
I hope that helps.
Regards Sam
On 16/4/09 10:10 AM, Terry Manderson wrote:
Before I make any comments regarding the potential for a "gap" in regulation (and people capitalising on it) between the implementation of Prop-050 and the possible implementation of Prop-071/072 (assuming consensus) perhaps we might consider the timelines for the secretariat to implement and enact the policies.
From what I recall APNIC said it would take 6 months to implement Prop-50 after EC endorsement.
I'm guessing that since Prop-071/072 are modifications to Prop-50 in re-application/allocation times (in essence) I would think that if consensus for them was reached at APNIC28, they could be implemented immediately after EC endorsement.
So my presumption is that due to the 6 months implementation time of Prop-50. Prop071 and 072 could be implemented at the same time.(*)
(*) Yes, this means that prop071/072 are in a win/loss state - if they don't reach consensus at APNIC28 they are pretty well done for.
APNIC secretariat, can you please clarify if my reading of the timelines is correct and provide the exact dates when items fall due?
Cheers Terry
On 16/04/2009, at 8:43 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
FWIW, I share these concerns.
-Scott
On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to express our concern about prop-050.
this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? this was discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?
Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE APWG mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)
so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for your input.
randy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Sam and all,
Very helpful thanks..
So if the consensus is maintained with Prop-050 may I respectfully recommend the EC and Secretariat to keep to a 6 month (or longer) implementation time to allow the machine to churn through Prop-071/072 and meet up with prop-050 at implementation if possible.
I accept this appears as a slippery slope. And if prop-050 needs such a crutch then maybe policy itself is immature, needs work and we as a community might consider to not maintain the consensus call.
Terry
On 16/04/2009, at 12:07 PM, Sam Dickinson wrote:
Hello Terry
You are correct in remembering that the Secretariat had posted to this list that if a proposal like prop-050 were to become policy, it would take six months after EC to implement it. As stated in that earlier post, that timeline could change a little once we create a detailed implementation plan. Implementation usually takes around 3 months, but can happen sooner or later, depending on the complexities of implementation. We have had policies implemented within days of EC endorsement (for example, prop-041) and policies that have taken as long as 11 months to implement (for example, prop-007).
I hope that helps.
Regards Sam
On 16/4/09 10:10 AM, Terry Manderson wrote:
Before I make any comments regarding the potential for a "gap" in regulation (and people capitalising on it) between the implementation of Prop-050 and the possible implementation of Prop-071/072 (assuming consensus) perhaps we might consider the timelines for the secretariat to implement and enact the policies. From what I recall APNIC said it would take 6 months to implement Prop-50 after EC endorsement. I'm guessing that since Prop-071/072 are modifications to Prop-50 in re-application/allocation times (in essence) I would think that if consensus for them was reached at APNIC28, they could be implemented immediately after EC endorsement. So my presumption is that due to the 6 months implementation time of Prop-50. Prop071 and 072 could be implemented at the same time. (*) (*) Yes, this means that prop071/072 are in a win/loss state - if they don't reach consensus at APNIC28 they are pretty well done for. APNIC secretariat, can you please clarify if my reading of the timelines is correct and provide the exact dates when items fall due? Cheers Terry On 16/04/2009, at 8:43 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
FWIW, I share these concerns.
-Scott
On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
> As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would > like > to > express our concern about prop-050. this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? this was discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?
Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE APWG mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)
so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for your input.
randy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-- _____________________________________________________________________ Samantha Dickinson email: sam@apnic.net Policy Development Manager, APNIC sip: sam@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
And perhaps and other follow-up policies that need to be created to support the well meaning intentions of prop-050.
Can someone remind me of the timeframe of the comment period... as in, when does it end?
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Terry Manderson Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2009 2:55 PM To: Sam Dickinson Cc: Randy Bush; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
Sam and all,
Very helpful thanks..
So if the consensus is maintained with Prop-050 may I respectfully recommend the EC and Secretariat to keep to a 6 month (or longer) implementation time to allow the machine to churn through Prop-071/072 and meet up with prop-050 at implementation if possible.
I accept this appears as a slippery slope. And if prop-050 needs such a crutch then maybe policy itself is immature, needs work and we as a community might consider to not maintain the consensus call.
Terry
On 16/04/2009, at 12:07 PM, Sam Dickinson wrote:
Hello Terry
You are correct in remembering that the Secretariat had posted to this list that if a proposal like prop-050 were to become policy, it would take six months after EC to implement it. As stated in that earlier post, that timeline could change a little once we create a detailed implementation plan. Implementation usually takes around 3 months, but can happen sooner or later, depending on the complexities of implementation. We have had policies implemented within days of EC endorsement (for example, prop-041) and policies that have taken as long as 11 months to implement (for example, prop-007).
I hope that helps.
Regards Sam
On 16/4/09 10:10 AM, Terry Manderson wrote:
Before I make any comments regarding the potential for a "gap" in regulation (and people capitalising on it) between the implementation of Prop-050 and the possible implementation of Prop-071/072 (assuming consensus) perhaps we might consider the timelines for the secretariat to implement and enact the policies. From what I recall APNIC said it would take 6 months to implement Prop-50 after EC endorsement. I'm guessing that since Prop-071/072 are modifications to Prop-50 in re-application/allocation times (in essence) I would think that if consensus for them was reached at APNIC28, they could be implemented immediately after EC endorsement. So my presumption is that due to the 6 months implementation time of Prop-50. Prop071 and 072 could be implemented at the same time. (*) (*) Yes, this means that prop071/072 are in a win/loss state - if they don't reach consensus at APNIC28 they are pretty well done
for.
APNIC secretariat, can you please clarify if my reading of the timelines is correct and provide the exact dates when items fall
due?
Cheers Terry On 16/04/2009, at 8:43 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
FWIW, I share these concerns.
-Scott
On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
>> As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would >> like >> to >> express our concern about prop-050. > this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? > this > was > discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached? Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE APWG mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns
:)
so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you
for
your input.
randy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-- _____________________________________________________________________ Samantha Dickinson email: sam@apnic.net Policy Development Manager, APNIC sip: sam@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policysig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Skeeve
The eight-week comment period ends 1 May 2009.
I hope this helps.
Regards Sam
On 18/4/09 2:36 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
And perhaps and other follow-up policies that need to be created to support the well meaning intentions of prop-050.
Can someone remind me of the timeframe of the comment period... as in, when does it end?
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments ar
e virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Terry Manderson Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2009 2:55 PM To: Sam Dickinson Cc: Randy Bush; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
Sam and all,
Very helpful thanks..
So if the consensus is maintained with Prop-050 may I respectfully recommend the EC and Secretariat to keep to a 6 month (or longer) implementation time to allow the machine to churn through Prop-071/072 and meet up with prop-050 at implementation if possible.
I accept this appears as a slippery slope. And if prop-050 needs such a crutch then maybe policy itself is immature, needs work and we as a community might consider to not maintain the consensus call.
Terry
I did something that I don't normally do... sat on my initial response to this email for a couple of days.
But my feelings are still the same. Randy, your manner is quite rude in what I see to be very useful comments from our brothers at RIPE, comments that I wholeheartedly support and also support their right to make them - whether it had been discussed on their list or not. These are genuine comments/concerns from another RIR and should be considered seriously.
If a non-APNIC member has the ability to become elected to the EC, then reasonably they should also be able to comment on policy, partake in discussions and so on. If this is not the case and there is a rule against this, can someone please advise?
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2009 8:38 AM To: Sander Steffann Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like
to
express our concern about prop-050.
this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? this
was
discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?
Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE APWG mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)
so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for your input.
randy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policysig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Your restraint, and sensitivity to avoiding rude behavior are exemplary and much needed in some other policy discussions.
I saw Randy's reply not as rude - he did thank for the input - but as clarifying that this input was just that of any other non-APNIC-member participant. One way to put it is that Sander's view carries no extra weight due to his status at RIPE, compared to mine for example. I am grateful that APNIC considers it possible that comments from outsiders like us could inform their process.
John
On 2009Apr17, at 12:03 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
I did something that I don't normally do... sat on my initial response to this email for a couple of days.
But my feelings are still the same. Randy, your manner is quite rude in what I see to be very useful comments from our brothers at RIPE, comments that I wholeheartedly support and also support their right to make them - whether it had been discussed on their list or not. These are genuine comments/concerns from another RIR and should be considered seriously.
If a non-APNIC member has the ability to become elected to the EC, then reasonably they should also be able to comment on policy, partake in discussions and so on. If this is not the case and there is a rule against this, can someone please advise?
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net On Behalf Of Randy Bush
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to express our concern about prop-050.
this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? this was discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?
Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE APWG mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)
so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for your input.
Skeeve,
I think all posts to this mailing list deserve respect and should be heard, just as you say. But I think Randy was just confirming if the opionion was from RIPE itself (as the title of the e-mail says) or if it is an opinion from a person from the RIPE region. Clarifying is always important, especially for ISPs in small non-english speaking countries like mine. :-)
Regards, Seiichi
I did something that I don't normally do... sat on my initial response to this email for a couple of days.
But my feelings are still the same. Randy, your manner is quite rude in what I see to be very useful comments from our brothers at RIPE, comments that I wholeheartedly support and also support their right to make them - whether it had been discussed on their list or not. These are genuine comments/concerns from another RIR and should be considered seriously.
If a non-APNIC member has the ability to become elected to the EC, then reasonably they should also be able to comment on policy, partake in discussions and so on. If this is not the case and there is a rule against this, can someone please advise?
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments a
re
virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2009 8:38 AM To: Sander Steffann Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like
to
express our concern about prop-050.
this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? this
was
discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?
Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE APWG mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)
so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for your input.
randy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policysig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
I agree Seiichi. Email does not convey tone too well.
But it is my view that Randy's comments were rude and accusative and they gave me and others (who emailed me directly) the impression that the comments and opinions of those outside of APNIC were not welcome - but yes, I agree that others may have viewed it entirely differently.
And while John comments that it may have been a clarification that the comment from RIPE was from 'just another non-APNIC member', I believe the deliverer of an opinion does carry some weight as to its overall value.
Also, thanks for reminding me that there are many members of this list who are not native English speakers. I do often use some English/Australian slang of localisations, and I should be mindful of that when constructing my emails. James did point this out to me a while ago, but I've forgotten over time.
If anyone doesn't exactly understand what I am meaning, please email me directly and I will endeavour to make myself more understandable.
...Skeeve
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
-----Original Message----- From: Seiichi Kawamura [mailto:kawamucho@msa.biglobe.ne.jp] Sent: Saturday, 18 April 2009 2:59 AM To: Skeeve Stevens Cc: Randy Bush; Sander Steffann; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
Skeeve,
I think all posts to this mailing list deserve respect and should be heard, just as you say. But I think Randy was just confirming if the opionion was from RIPE itself (as the title of the e-mail says) or if it is an opinion from a person from the RIPE region. Clarifying is always important, especially for ISPs in small non- english speaking countries like mine. :-)
Regards, Seiichi
I did something that I don't normally do... sat on my initial
response to this email for a couple of days.
But my feelings are still the same. Randy, your manner is quite rude
in what I see to be very useful comments from our brothers at RIPE, comments that I wholeheartedly support and also support their right to make them - whether it had been discussed on their list or not. These are genuine comments/concerns from another RIR and should be considered seriously.
If a non-APNIC member has the ability to become elected to the EC,
then reasonably they should also be able to comment on policy, partake in discussions and so on. If this is not the case and there is a rule against this, can someone please advise?
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for
the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments a re
virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any
liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2009 8:38 AM To: Sander Steffann Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like
to
express our concern about prop-050.
this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? this
was
discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?
Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE
APWG
mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)
so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for your input.
randy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policysig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Activity Summary
- 5335 days inactive
- 5335 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 8 participants
- 17 comments