Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear SIG members
Version 002 of the proposal "prop-103: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 34 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 30 August 2012.
Information about this version and version 001 is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/**proposals/prop-103http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-103
You are encouraged you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose 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?
Regards,
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
------------------------------**-------------------------
prop-103-v002: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
------------------------------**-------------------------
Author: Randy Bush randy@psg.com
1. Introduction ---------------
IPv4 is history, with no immediate need to add more policy. IPv6 is sufficiently plentiful that a lot of further policy making is probably not needed. So let us agree to make no more IP address policies or proposals except those which are clearly needed and for which can not be accomplished with current procedures.
2. Summary ----------
The APNIC community spends time and resources proposing, discussing, arguing, ... about IP address policies out of habit. The process is important in that it maintains an open policy process but often these proposals are not really relevant to actually coordinating the prudent and high quality operation of the internet.
3. Situation in other RIRs --------------------------
The community spends inordinate time and resources making endless policy proposals about miniscule issues and baroque corner cases. This is a waste of time and other resources.
4. Details ----------
IPv4 policy proposals should be carefully examined to ensure that they are really necessary and they address real needs that can not be accomplished with existing processes. Discussion of the problem should preceed proposals for new policy to address the problem.
In general, the same should hold for IPv6, although it is realized that, as we learn more about IPv6 use and deployment, more policy development may be useful.
5. Pros/Cons ------------
Advantages:
- We would not have to spend time discussing things of small consequence and which do not help the customer/user in any real way.
Disadvantages:
- It would impact the amateur careers of policy wannabes. This is a feature, not a bug.
6. Effect on APNIC ------------------
Saves money, time, and other resources such as administrative complexity created by more complex but useless policies.
7. Effect on NIRs -----------------
Saves money, time, and other resources such as administrative complexity created by more complex but useless policies.
I agree with the sentiment as presented here much more than the previous version. As written however, I'm unsure of what the proposal would actually be implementing.
The proposal states:
IPv4 policy proposals should be carefully examined to ensure that they are really necessary
Agree!
and they address real needs that can not be accomplished with existing processes.
No complaints here!
Discussion of the problem should preceed proposals for new policy to address the problem.
Yep - agree once again. We would be better off talking about problems and having a more inclusive method of going from a problem statement to a policy proposal if necessary.
So I think the idea of Problem Statement -> Discussion -> Solutions Proposed -> Discussion -> Policy Proposal is sound. My question is how would we implement that, because at least a bit of that should be included in this policy so we know what we're in for.
Regards,
Dean
I don't like replying to my own post but...
As a strawman if some changes were made to section 4, then I think the intent of the proposal stands, but it gives some guidance on how the PDP could be changed to accomplish the intent.
How about...
4. Details ----------
IPv4 policy proposals should be carefully examined to ensure that they provide a solution to a well defined problem and they address real needs that can not be accomplished with existing processes. Discussion of the problem should precede proposals for new policy to address the problem.
The following process describes how this discussion could be included within the current PDP.
. A Problem Statement is posted to the Policy-SIG list outlining a problem or issue with the current APNIC policies. . The proposer leads conversation on the Policy-SIG list to develop possible solutions to this Problem Statement. . At this stage the APNIC Secretariat can comment if they consider that the Problem Statement can be covered within current policies. . When the proposer feels that they have a solution to their Problem Statement, they draft a policy and submit it in a similar fashion as occurs currently within the PDP.
This will ensure that policy proposals have a clearly stated problem statement and that any major objections are at least voiced early in the process.
In general, the same should hold for IPv6, although it is realized that, as we learn more about IPv6 use and deployment, more policy development may be useful.
Thoughts?
Regards, Dean
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Andy Linton asjl@lpnz.org wrote:
Dear SIG members
Version 002 of the proposal "prop-103: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 34 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 30 August 2012.
Information about this version and version 001 is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-103You are encouraged you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose 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?Regards,
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-103-v002: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
Author: Randy Bush randy@psg.com
- Introduction
IPv4 is history, with no immediate need to add more policy. IPv6 is sufficiently plentiful that a lot of further policy making is probably not needed. So let us agree to make no more IP address policies or proposals except those which are clearly needed and for which can not be accomplished with current procedures.
- Summary
The APNIC community spends time and resources proposing, discussing, arguing, ... about IP address policies out of habit. The process is important in that it maintains an open policy process but often these proposals are not really relevant to actually coordinating the prudent and high quality operation of the internet.
- Situation in other RIRs
The community spends inordinate time and resources making endless policy proposals about miniscule issues and baroque corner cases. This is a waste of time and other resources.
- Details
IPv4 policy proposals should be carefully examined to ensure that they are really necessary and they address real needs that can not be accomplished with existing processes. Discussion of the problem should preceed proposals for new policy to address the problem.
In general, the same should hold for IPv6, although it is realized that, as we learn more about IPv6 use and deployment, more policy development may be useful.
- Pros/Cons
Advantages:
- We would not have to spend time discussing things of small consequence and which do not help the customer/user in any real way.Disadvantages:
- It would impact the amateur careers of policy wannabes. This is a feature, not a bug.
- Effect on APNIC
Saves money, time, and other resources such as administrative complexity created by more complex but useless policies.
- Effect on NIRs
Saves money, time, and other resources such as administrative complexity created by more complex but useless policies.
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 don't like replying to my own post but...
As a strawman if some changes were made to section 4, then I think the intent of the proposal stands, but it gives some guidance on how the PDP could be changed to accomplish the intent.
How about...
this is fine with me
randy
- Details
IPv4 policy proposals should be carefully examined to ensure that they provide a solution to a well defined problem and they address real needs that can not be accomplished with existing processes. Discussion of the problem should precede proposals for new policy to address the problem.
The following process describes how this discussion could be included within the current PDP.
. A Problem Statement is posted to the Policy-SIG list outlining a problem or issue with the current APNIC policies. . The proposer leads conversation on the Policy-SIG list to develop possible solutions to this Problem Statement. . At this stage the APNIC Secretariat can comment if they consider that the Problem Statement can be covered within current policies. . When the proposer feels that they have a solution to their Problem Statement, they draft a policy and submit it in a similar fashion as occurs currently within the PDP.
This will ensure that policy proposals have a clearly stated problem statement and that any major objections are at least voiced early in the process.
In general, the same should hold for IPv6, although it is realized that, as we learn more about IPv6 use and deployment, more policy development may be useful.
Thoughts?
Regards, Dean
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Andy Linton asjl@lpnz.org wrote:
Dear SIG members
Version 002 of the proposal "prop-103: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 34 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 30 August 2012.
Information about this version and version 001 is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-103You are encouraged you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose 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?Regards,
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-103-v002: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
Author: Randy Bush randy@psg.com
- Introduction
IPv4 is history, with no immediate need to add more policy. IPv6 is sufficiently plentiful that a lot of further policy making is probably not needed. So let us agree to make no more IP address policies or proposals except those which are clearly needed and for which can not be accomplished with current procedures.
- Summary
The APNIC community spends time and resources proposing, discussing, arguing, ... about IP address policies out of habit. The process is important in that it maintains an open policy process but often these proposals are not really relevant to actually coordinating the prudent and high quality operation of the internet.
- Situation in other RIRs
The community spends inordinate time and resources making endless policy proposals about miniscule issues and baroque corner cases. This is a waste of time and other resources.
- Details
IPv4 policy proposals should be carefully examined to ensure that they are really necessary and they address real needs that can not be accomplished with existing processes. Discussion of the problem should preceed proposals for new policy to address the problem.
In general, the same should hold for IPv6, although it is realized that, as we learn more about IPv6 use and deployment, more policy development may be useful.
- Pros/Cons
Advantages:
- We would not have to spend time discussing things of small consequence and which do not help the customer/user in any real way.Disadvantages:
- It would impact the amateur careers of policy wannabes. This is a feature, not a bug.
- Effect on APNIC
Saves money, time, and other resources such as administrative complexity created by more complex but useless policies.
- Effect on NIRs
Saves money, time, and other resources such as administrative complexity created by more complex but useless policies.
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
-- Regards,
Dean
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
We'll be discussing this revised draft tomorrow in the Policy SIG session. Are there any comments from the list?
I support the changes as outlined by Dean.
On 29 August 2012 14:19, Andy Linton asjl@lpnz.org wrote:
We'll be discussing this revised draft tomorrow in the Policy SIG session. Are there any comments from the list?
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
The following process describes how this discussion could be included within the current PDP.
. A Problem Statement is posted to the Policy-SIG list outlining a problem or issue with the current APNIC policies.
I like this :-)
. The proposer leads conversation on the Policy-SIG list to develop possible solutions to this Problem Statement.
I would suggest either proposer or policy-sig chair/co-chairs.
. At this stage the APNIC Secretariat can comment if they consider that the Problem Statement can be covered within current policies. . When the proposer feels that they have a solution to their Problem Statement, they draft a policy and submit it in a similar fashion as occurs currently within the PDP.
This will ensure that policy proposals have a clearly stated problem statement and that any major objections are at least voiced early in the process.
Great. Thanks for drafting this.
Regards, Seiichi
as this proposal discussion has become an example of what this proposal was attempting to reduce, formally withdraw the proposal.
randy
Activity Summary
- 4045 days inactive
- 4045 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 5 participants
- 7 comments