Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j
: Next unread messagek
: Previous unread messagej a
: Jump to all threadsj l
: Jump to MailingList overview

Dear SIG members
Below is a summary report of the status of proposals following the Policy SIG held during APNIC 27 today.
The following proposals were abandoned following a lack of community support:
prop-060: Change in the criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region
prop-063: Reducing timeframe of IPv4 allocations from twelve to six months
prop-070: Maximum IPv4 allocation size
The following proposals were withdrawn:
prop-067: A simple transfer proposal
prop-068: Inter-RIR transfer policy
The following proposals reached consensus:
prop-050: IPv4 address transfers (with modifications to be detailed in a subsequent email to this list)
prop-069: Global policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries
Next steps ----------
1. The SIG Chairs report on the status of proposals at the APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).
2. Proposals that reach consensus at both the Policy SIG and the AMM are then returned to the Policy SIG mailing list for an eight-week comment period.
3. If no substantial objections are received during the final comment period, the proposals are deemed to have reached consensus at each stage of the policy development process. At this point, the SIG Chairs forward the proposals to the APNIC Executive Council (EC) for endorsement.
4. If the APNIC EC endorses the proposals, the APNIC Secretariat begins work on implementation of the proposals. Implementation usually takes a minimum of three months, but may take more depending on the implementation complexity.
For more information, please see:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
All presentation material from today's Policy SIG are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/27/program/policy
For more information on the policy development process, see:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/policy-development.html
Regards

Hi Sam,
I have a procedural question, in yesterdays policy sig prop-69 was deemed to have reached consensus. However the presenter and co-author after being asked a question (post consensus) said he would take the policy back to his co-authors to include wording and examples on minimum allocations. as below:
--------- IZUMI OKUTANI: Can I ask a question? So are you going to define the minimum size for this or how do you address that point that I raised earlier?
AXEL PAWLIK: I will take that back to the author's group. We can certainly put in some examples to make it easier to understand and something like that.
IZUMI OKUTANI: At the minimum allocation size as well.
AXEL PAWLIK: We can, yeah. --------
My interpretation is that this would abrogate the consensus call and mean the policy would be re-drafted and returned to the mailing list to complete the policy life-cycle, or require a further consensus call based on actual wording defined at the meeting, as demonstrated in the collaborative efforts of prop-50.
I accept that this is a global policy, and requires convergence in all the RIR policy processes - however I don't see that as a substantive reason to bypass due process, if my interpretation is correct.
Please clarify.
Cheers Terry
On 27/02/2009, at 12:08 AM, Sam Dickinson wrote:
The following proposals reached consensus:
prop-050: IPv4 address transfers (with modifications to be
detailed in a subsequent email to this list)
prop-069: Global policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries

I have a procedural question, in yesterdays policy sig prop-69 was deemed to have reached consensus. However the presenter and co-author after being asked a question (post consensus) said he would take the policy back to his co-authors to include wording and examples on minimum allocations. as below:
IZUMI OKUTANI: Can I ask a question? So are you going to define the minimum size for this or how do you address that point that I raised earlier?
AXEL PAWLIK: I will take that back to the author's group. We can certainly put in some examples to make it easier to understand and something like that.
IZUMI OKUTANI: At the minimum allocation size as well.
AXEL PAWLIK: We can, yeah.
My interpretation is that this would abrogate the consensus call and mean the policy would be re-drafted and returned to the mailing list to complete the policy life-cycle, or require a further consensus call based on actual wording defined at the meeting, as demonstrated in the collaborative efforts of prop-50.
my inclination, as chair, is the following
the changes proposed are "put in some examples to make it easier to understand" and to clarify a minimum allocations size.
the eight week post-meeting mailing list review should be sufficient to be sure we still have consensus on such minor tuning of this proposal.
of course, we have to see what they change.
does anyone have strong objection to this?
randy

Hi Randy,
On 27/02/2009, at 11:55 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
my inclination, as chair, is the following
the changes proposed are "put in some examples to make it easier to understand" and to clarify a minimum allocations size.
I'm concerned with the details given that it appeared (and I can only base this on transcripts) that neither my nor Gaurab's concerns from the mailing list were responded to on the mailing list nor in the presentation. (and unfortunately I was subject to network variances and I couldn't remind the policy sig of the concerns at the time)
the eight week post-meeting mailing list review should be sufficient to be sure we still have consensus on such minor tuning of this proposal.
Provided that those changes are posted to the mailing list before the end of next week (6th march), allowing 7 weeks to review and comment, otherwise the the policy (in my opinion) should again seek consensus at the next member meeting such that due process is adhered to.
of course, we have to see what they change.
does anyone have strong objection to this?
Not strong objection, strong concern would be a preferred description. I think these issues should be well scrutinised and short cuts should be avoided.
Cheers Terry
Activity Summary
- 5326 days inactive
- 5326 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 3 participants
- 3 comments