Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
I want to comment on the process of posting of Prop-103. There was debate between the Chair and Co-chairs about whether this proposal should proceed. I have decided to post the proposal based on the following.
The key criteria from the APNIC SIG guidelines are:
The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion at the forthcoming SIG session if:
1) The proposal is out of scope for the SIG 2) The proposal is insufficiently developed to be the basis for a useful discussion 3) The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority
Item 1 +++++
The guidelines say:
Dissolving a SIG
It is not assumed that a SIG will continue to exist indefinitely. Each SIG should periodically review its charter to assess the SIG’s usefulness and relevance.
Signs that a SIG may have outlived its purpose include:
- Lack of discussion on the mailing lists for more than one year - Lack of response to calls for presentations at SIG sessions - Low attendance at SIG sessions
A SIG may be dissolved if the members of the SIG decide that this is an appropriate course of action and this recommendation is approved by the AMM. Members of the SIG may make the decision to dissolve the SIG via the SIG mailing list or at SIG sessions. If a SIG is dissolved, all associated mailing lists will be closed for subscription, but the public archives will remain on the APNIC website.
---
It's clear to me that this is a decision that only the SIG can take (with agreement from the AMM). This proposal effectively asks for that to happen. Note that the criteria are signs and not requirements and it's not the role of the Policy SIG chairs to decide what the membership of the SIG might think here.
Item 2 +++++
There was debate among the chairs whether the met this criteria.
I believe it asks us to look at the Policy SIG's processes and rationale for existence as the guidelines suggest.
It seems to me that such a discussion may go two ways:
a) the proposal gets rejected out of hand because everything is just fine the way it is b) the proposal provokes discussion and leads to an improvement in the way the Policy SIG operates
Item 3 +++++
At this stage our agenda isn't so full that we need to reject this proposal.
Andy,
I think the chairs made the correct decision in posting this to the list.
While I believe that the policy is without merit and would actually be quite harmful, if adopted, I believe it is within scope of the PDP and that the community and not the chairs alone should make that determination. I can certainly understand the difficulty in determining whether to take such a proposal seriously, as my initial reaction was to see if I'd lost track of time and it was already April 1 again. However, I think erring on the side of assuming the proposer is serious and allowing the community to discuss it just in case is the right thing to do.
Thanks,
Owen
On Jul 8, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
I want to comment on the process of posting of Prop-103. There was debate between the Chair and Co-chairs about whether this proposal should proceed. I have decided to post the proposal based on the following.
The key criteria from the APNIC SIG guidelines are:
The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion at the forthcoming SIG session if:
- The proposal is out of scope for the SIG
- The proposal is insufficiently developed to be the basis for a
useful discussion 3) The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority
Item 1 +++++
The guidelines say:
Dissolving a SIG
It is not assumed that a SIG will continue to exist indefinitely. Each SIG should periodically review its charter to assess the SIG’s usefulness and relevance.
Signs that a SIG may have outlived its purpose include:
- Lack of discussion on the mailing lists for more than one year
- Lack of response to calls for presentations at SIG sessions
- Low attendance at SIG sessions
A SIG may be dissolved if the members of the SIG decide that this is an appropriate course of action and this recommendation is approved by the AMM. Members of the SIG may make the decision to dissolve the SIG via the SIG mailing list or at SIG sessions. If a SIG is dissolved, all associated mailing lists will be closed for subscription, but the public archives will remain on the APNIC website.
It's clear to me that this is a decision that only the SIG can take (with agreement from the AMM). This proposal effectively asks for that to happen. Note that the criteria are signs and not requirements and it's not the role of the Policy SIG chairs to decide what the membership of the SIG might think here.
Item 2 +++++
There was debate among the chairs whether the met this criteria.
I believe it asks us to look at the Policy SIG's processes and rationale for existence as the guidelines suggest.
It seems to me that such a discussion may go two ways:
a) the proposal gets rejected out of hand because everything is just fine the way it is b) the proposal provokes discussion and leads to an improvement in the way the Policy SIG operates
Item 3 +++++
At this stage our agenda isn't so full that we need to reject this proposal.
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 with Owen here. If this is really something that Randy wants to bring to the table, then I believe that the chairs have made the correct decision bringing it to the list.
I will socialise the proposal around the New Zealand community and bring that and my own commentary back to the list.
Regards, Dean
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Owen DeLong owen@delong.com wrote:
Andy,
I think the chairs made the correct decision in posting this to the list.
While I believe that the policy is without merit and would actually be quite harmful, if adopted, I believe it is within scope of the PDP and that the community and not the chairs alone should make that determination. I can certainly understand the difficulty in determining whether to take such a proposal seriously, as my initial reaction was to see if I'd lost track of time and it was already April 1 again. However, I think erring on the side of assuming the proposer is serious and allowing the community to discuss it just in case is the right thing to do.
Thanks,
Owen
On Jul 8, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
I agree with Owen here.
I agree that it was appropriate for the chairs to bring the proposal before the community.
As to the content of the proposal, I would make the following observations:
- APNIC, having exhausted their free pool of IPv4 addresses, has a simple "you pay your money, you get your /22 (once)" policy. I suspect it unlikely there would be any value to further IPv4-related policy discussions moving forward.
- Existing IPv6 policy is essentially a simple "you pay your money, you get your /32 or /48 depending on what you need". The definition of "need" seems to have reached consensus some time ago. Allocations beyond /32s or /48s are covered in existing policy and I suspect it unlikely there would be significant value to having the ability to change those policies on a twice-yearly basis.
- We have been told on innumerable occasions that the IPv6 free pool is unlikely to be consumed in the foreseeable future, and even if it is, we have 7 other format specifiers that are (mostly) untouched, so if we ever use up the first format specifier, we can (at least theoretically) resurrect policy definition processes to revise IPv6 allocation policy.
- I believe most folks trying to do business are looking for consistency of policy/process. Having constantly changing policy/process typically results in non-trivial costs as companies have to figure out how those changes affect them and whether or not they want to spend the resources to fight/support those changes.
Given the above and the proposal's suggestion to enable the EC to resurrect the PDP processes as needs warrant, I would not dismiss the proposal out of hand.
Regards, -drc
On Jul 8, 2012, at 3:51 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jul 8, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
I agree with Owen here.
I agree that it was appropriate for the chairs to bring the proposal before the community.
As to the content of the proposal, I would make the following observations:
APNIC, having exhausted their free pool of IPv4 addresses, has a simple "you pay your money, you get your /22 (once)" policy. I suspect it unlikely there would be any value to further IPv4-related policy discussions moving forward.
Existing IPv6 policy is essentially a simple "you pay your money, you get your /32 or /48 depending on what you need". The definition of "need" seems to have reached consensus some time ago. Allocations beyond /32s or /48s are covered in existing policy and I suspect it unlikely there would be significant value to having the ability to change those policies on a twice-yearly basis.
The problem with this being that a /32 is actually inadequate for all but the most simple and smaller ISP networks unless you victimize your users with smaller than /48 allocations.
Owen
On 9/07/2012, at 10:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The problem with this being that a /32 is actually inadequate for all but the most simple and smaller ISP networks unless you victimize your users with smaller than /48 allocations.
It stuns me every time I hear someone state that a /32, which is the equivalent of the *entire* IPv4 pace, is inadequate. Perhaps one day, in the same future where we all have flying cars, there will be so many devices in a house that we need more than a /56 but basing allocation on that aspiration makes me shudder. And as for describing it as 'victimisation', well I don't know where to start.
Jay
On Jul 9, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
On 9/07/2012, at 10:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The problem with this being that a /32 is actually inadequate for all but the most simple and smaller ISP networks unless you victimize your users with smaller than /48 allocations.
It stuns me every time I hear someone state that a /32, which is the equivalent of the *entire* IPv4 pace, is inadequate. Perhaps one day, in the same future where we all have flying cars, there will be so many devices in a house that we need more than a /56 but basing allocation on that aspiration makes me shudder. And as for describing it as 'victimisation', well I don't know where to start.
IPv6 requires thinking quite a bit differently. In IPv4 we weren't giving a /16 to every end-site. In IPv6, we are.
It's not about number of devices at the end. It's about number of subnets and about having enough bits to plan for automating hierarchical topologies at the end-site.
It's about having better capabilities than we had in IPv4, not merely expanding the IPv4 paradigm and its foibles and limitations into a wider bitfield.
If you inflict a limitation on your subscribers that prevents them from taking advantage of innovations and improvements in technology in the future, or, worse, prevents those innovations from taking place, then I'm not sure what better term to apply than victimization.
Owen
On 10/07/2012, at 9:52 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IPv6 requires thinking quite a bit differently. In IPv4 we weren't giving a /16 to every end-site. In IPv6, we are.
It's not about number of devices at the end. It's about number of subnets and about having enough bits to plan for automating hierarchical topologies at the end-site.
It's about having better capabilities than we had in IPv4, not merely expanding the IPv4 paradigm and its foibles and limitations into a wider bitfield.
If you inflict a limitation on your subscribers that prevents them from taking advantage of innovations and improvements in technology in the future, or, worse, prevents those innovations from taking place, then I'm not sure what better term to apply than victimization.
We're already keeping the last 64 bits for thinking differently. Just how many bits does this thinking differently need?
And if automated hierachical topologies don't happen? My point is that we should allocate according to known need and not aspirations. If we do ever get to the stage of needing automated hierarchical topologies then we can reallocate, it's not hard.
The argument often given by the 'allocate a /48' advocates is that we are only using a small part of IPv6 and can always use a future tranche in a different way. I would make the same argument when it comes to allocating a /56 to a household - if it's not enough then we can always change.
History has been quite clear that underallocating any resource and then giving more is a far, far easier path than overallocating and then taking back.
Jay
On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
On 10/07/2012, at 9:52 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IPv6 requires thinking quite a bit differently. In IPv4 we weren't giving a /16 to every end-site. In IPv6, we are.
It's not about number of devices at the end. It's about number of subnets and about having enough bits to plan for automating hierarchical topologies at the end-site.
It's about having better capabilities than we had in IPv4, not merely expanding the IPv4 paradigm and its foibles and limitations into a wider bitfield.
If you inflict a limitation on your subscribers that prevents them from taking advantage of innovations and improvements in technology in the future, or, worse, prevents those innovations from taking place, then I'm not sure what better term to apply than victimization.
We're already keeping the last 64 bits for thinking differently. Just how many bits does this thinking differently need?
The last 64 is for host addressing within the subnet.
You need some bits for thinking differently on the left side of the subnet boundary too.
And if automated hierachical topologies don't happen? My point is that we should allocate according to known need and not aspirations. If we do ever get to the stage of needing automated hierarchical topologies then we can reallocate, it's not hard.
You're creating an unnecessary chicken and egg negative feedback loop. The research and development on automated hierarchical topologies is already in progress, but vendors won't productize it if ISPs won't support it. Just like vendors don't provide solutions for IPv4 that don't assume everything on a flat network with NAT in the way today. Why? Because very few households have subnetted networks or the ability to do so without NAT.
As a victim of this assumption in today's products in IPv4, I can assure you that it creates unnecessary limitations and is counterproductive to innovation.
The argument often given by the 'allocate a /48' advocates is that we are only using a small part of IPv6 and can always use a future tranche in a different way. I would make the same argument when it comes to allocating a /56 to a household - if it's not enough then we can always change.
Meh... It's a valid point... There is a safety valve in case we're wrong. So what? The real issue is that there is a very real reason present today to allocate as designed. Most of those bits were put into the protocol for that purpose.
History has been quite clear that underallocating any resource and then giving more is a far, far easier path than overallocating and then taking back.
History has also been quite clear that creating artificial scarcity has its own costs.
Underallocating IPv6 is an example of such a creation of artificial scarcity.
There are two ways one can waste IPv6 addresses...
One way is to delegate them to end users who don't actually use them.
The other is to ensure that there are vast amounts of IPv6 still on the shelves at IANA and/or IETF not even delegated to IANA when IPv6 is deprecated as a protocol at some time likely after I'm dead and gone.
Ideally, we have enough bits in IPv6 to take advantage of both forms of waste.
However, failing to make good use of the first form to support innovation and flexibility at the residential level is a really bad idea.
Owen
On Jul 9, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 9, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
On 9/07/2012, at 10:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The problem with this being that a /32 is actually inadequate for all but the most simple and smaller ISP networks unless you victimize your users with smaller than /48 allocations.
It stuns me every time I hear someone state that a /32, which is the equivalent of the *entire* IPv4 pace, is inadequate. Perhaps one day, in the same future where we all have flying cars, there will be so many devices in a house that we need more than a /56 but basing allocation on that aspiration makes me shudder. And as for describing it as 'victimisation', well I don't know where to start.
IPv6 requires thinking quite a bit differently. In IPv4 we weren't giving a /16 to every end-site. In IPv6, we are.
I should clarify this... Fingers got ahead of brain...
In IPv4, we didn't give 65,536 unique addresses (let alone 65,536 unique subnets) to every end-site.
In IPv4, we should be giving 65,536 /64 network numbers to each end-site. (/48)
At that rate, any ISP that has more than 65,536 end-sites served (which is pretty small in many parts of the world these days), a /32 is facially inadequate.
When you allow for topological hierarchies and look at the desirability of being able to aggregate those hierarchies on nibble aligned boundaries for improved human factors, DNS, and other considerations, it becomes rapidly clear that all but the most trivial of ISP networks probably need at least a /28. There are way way way more than enough /28s to accommodate this and still have many many many prefixes sitting on the shelf by the end of IPv6's useful life.
It's not about number of devices at the end. It's about number of subnets and about having enough bits to plan for automating hierarchical topologies at the end-site.
It's about having better capabilities than we had in IPv4, not merely expanding the IPv4 paradigm and its foibles and limitations into a wider bitfield.
If you inflict a limitation on your subscribers that prevents them from taking advantage of innovations and improvements in technology in the future, or, worse, prevents those innovations from taking place, then I'm not sure what better term to apply than victimization.
Owen
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
On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
- Existing IPv6 policy is essentially a simple "you pay your money, you get your /32 or /48 depending on what you need". The definition of "need" seems to have reached consensus some time ago. Allocations beyond /32s or /48s are covered in existing policy and I suspect it unlikely there would be significant value to having the ability to change those policies on a twice-yearly basis.
The problem with this being that a /32 is actually inadequate for all but the most simple and smaller ISP networks unless you victimize your users with smaller than /48 allocations.
Without commenting on your assertions on the applicability of an IPv6 /32, I will reiterate what I said:
Allocations beyond /32s or /48s are covered in existing policy and I suspect it unlikely there would be significant value to having the ability to change those policies on a twice-yearly basis.
I will admit some skepticism that continued fine tuning of the size of an initial IPv6 prefix justifies the continuation of a general policy forum.
Regards, -drc
On 7/8/12 6:51 PM, "David Conrad" drc@virtualized.org wrote:
On Jul 8, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
[ clip ]
- I believe most folks trying to do business are looking for consistency of
policy/process.
+1
Best,
-M<
On Monday, July 9, 2012, Dean Pemberton wrote:
I agree with Owen here.
If this is really something that Randy wants to bring to the table,
then I believe that the chairs have made the correct decision bringing
it to the list.
I will socialise the proposal around the New Zealand community and
bring that and my own commentary back to the list.
Regards,
Dean
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> Andy,
>
> I think the chairs made the correct decision in posting this to the list.
>
> While I believe that the policy is without merit and would actually be quite harmful, if adopted, I believe it is within scope of the PDP and that the community and not the chairs alone should make that determination. I can certainly understand the difficulty in determining whether to take such a proposal seriously, as my initial reaction was to see if I'd lost track of time and it was already April 1 again. However, I think erring on the side of assuming the proposer is serious and allowing the community to discuss it just in case is the right thing to do.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Owen
>
--
Regards,
Dean
Randy, would you as the proposer be open to making amendments to this proposal? Or would you rather that it stand as currently written?
in principle, sure. but would depend on the amendments, of course. e.g. one to serve coffee ice cream at all meetings would be most welcome. (we really should try to keep a sense of humor)
but beware of the union standard proposal effect. nw said something like everyone thinks pascal is almost perfect, and wants to change only one thing. the problem is that everyone has a different thing.
randy
You've got my support on the ice cream. =)
The biggest reluctance is to close the door on IPv6 policy so soon in the deployment [1].
I think that there might be some middle ground whereby the PDP process only started up when a proposal was presented, rather than as a matter of course. That way the door was always open, but didn't mean that there had to be a party every 6 months if there was nothing to say.
Regards, Dean
[1] yes I realise how long the RFCs have been around. yes I realise how long people SHOULD have been doing this.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
Randy, would you as the proposer be open to making amendments to this proposal? Or would you rather that it stand as currently written?
in principle, sure. but would depend on the amendments, of course. e.g. one to serve coffee ice cream at all meetings would be most welcome. (we really should try to keep a sense of humor)
but beware of the union standard proposal effect. nw said something like everyone thinks pascal is almost perfect, and wants to change only one thing. the problem is that everyone has a different thing.
randy
That is about where I am. I agree the v4 party is over and the deck chairs probably don't need further adjusting.
I'm not fully convinced that v6 is fully baked (e.g. Prop-101) yet, and as more operators/end sites get on the bandwagon there's likely to be other interesting hiccups that may need to be addressed. A mechanism probably should remain to allow for this, whether it is triggered on-demand or through the AMM/EC.
So I guess I am gently supportive of the intent, and do think that there probably needs to be slightly less emphasis on the policy SIG overall. Although it is my favorite part of every APNIC meeting....
aj
On 11/07/2012, at 6:47 PM, Dean Pemberton dean@deanpemberton.com wrote:
You've got my support on the ice cream. =)
The biggest reluctance is to close the door on IPv6 policy so soon in the deployment [1].
I think that there might be some middle ground whereby the PDP process only started up when a proposal was presented, rather than as a matter of course. That way the door was always open, but didn't mean that there had to be a party every 6 months if there was nothing to say.
Regards, Dean
[1] yes I realise how long the RFCs have been around. yes I realise how long people SHOULD have been doing this.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
Randy, would you as the proposer be open to making amendments to this proposal? Or would you rather that it stand as currently written?
in principle, sure. but would depend on the amendments, of course. e.g. one to serve coffee ice cream at all meetings would be most welcome. (we really should try to keep a sense of humor)
but beware of the union standard proposal effect. nw said something like everyone thinks pascal is almost perfect, and wants to change only one thing. the problem is that everyone has a different thing.
randy
-- 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
That is about where I am. I agree the v4 party is over and the deck chairs probably don't need further adjusting.
we can fight over the scraps
You've got my support on the ice cream. =)
i can probably do the wording on that amendment.
The biggest reluctance is to close the door on IPv6 policy so soon in the deployment [1].
not seeing footnote.
I think that there might be some middle ground whereby the PDP process only started up when a proposal was presented, rather than as a matter of course. That way the door was always open, but didn't mean that there had to be a party every 6 months if there was nothing to say.
propose text?
randy
propose text?
randy
--
Regards,
Dean
I'm seeing people saying that there *may* be problems and that rather than dismissing this proposal we should consider what they might be. I think that's a valid thing to do.
3/ we do the same thing in a working group and add 6 months minimum to the process.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
I forwarded the policy proposal to the AusNOG list. It garnered zero discussion. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
Your own interpretations may vary, but that hints at 2 possibilities to me.
1) People in AU are apathetic if the policy either passes or does not. Which may well support Randy's position that there isn't anything left (policy wise) to get enthusiastic about.
2) People in AU (generally) are well removed from policy and provided as they have a direction forward to keeping their networks running, then they will just get on with it as their business directs.
T.
On 12/07/2012, at 7:34 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
After consultation with people within the NZ community both online and in person at the current Nethui event, there is not a lot of support for the proposal in its current form.
What there is however, is an acknowledgement that there may be a change required in the PDP process, and a willingness to engage to discuss such changes.
Randy, would you as the proposer be open to making amendments to this proposal? Or would you rather that it stand as currently written?
Regards Dean
On Monday, July 9, 2012, Dean Pemberton wrote: I agree with Owen here. If this is really something that Randy wants to bring to the table, then I believe that the chairs have made the correct decision bringing it to the list.
I will socialise the proposal around the New Zealand community and bring that and my own commentary back to the list.
Regards, Dean
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Owen DeLong owen@delong.com wrote:
Andy,
I think the chairs made the correct decision in posting this to the list.
While I believe that the policy is without merit and would actually be quite harmful, if adopted, I believe it is within scope of the PDP and that the community and not the chairs alone should make that determination. I can certainly understand the difficulty in determining whether to take such a proposal seriously, as my initial reaction was to see if I'd lost track of time and it was already April 1 again. However, I think erring on the side of assuming the proposer is serious and allowing the community to discuss it just in case is the right thing to do.
Thanks,
Owen
-- 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
Possibility 3) they thought it was some form of prank and were unable to take it seriously.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 22, 2012, at 8:46 PM, Terry Manderson terry@terrym.net wrote:
I forwarded the policy proposal to the AusNOG list. It garnered zero discussion. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
Your own interpretations may vary, but that hints at 2 possibilities to me.
People in AU are apathetic if the policy either passes or does not. Which may well support Randy's position that there isn't anything left (policy wise) to get enthusiastic about.
People in AU (generally) are well removed from policy and provided as they have a direction forward to keeping their networks running, then they will just get on with it as their business directs.
T.
On 12/07/2012, at 7:34 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
After consultation with people within the NZ community both online and in person at the current Nethui event, there is not a lot of support for the proposal in its current form.
What there is however, is an acknowledgement that there may be a change required in the PDP process, and a willingness to engage to discuss such changes.
Randy, would you as the proposer be open to making amendments to this proposal? Or would you rather that it stand as currently written?
Regards Dean
On Monday, July 9, 2012, Dean Pemberton wrote: I agree with Owen here. If this is really something that Randy wants to bring to the table, then I believe that the chairs have made the correct decision bringing it to the list.
I will socialise the proposal around the New Zealand community and bring that and my own commentary back to the list.
Regards, Dean
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Owen DeLong owen@delong.com wrote:
Andy,
I think the chairs made the correct decision in posting this to the list.
While I believe that the policy is without merit and would actually be quite harmful, if adopted, I believe it is within scope of the PDP and that the community and not the chairs alone should make that determination. I can certainly understand the difficulty in determining whether to take such a proposal seriously, as my initial reaction was to see if I'd lost track of time and it was already April 1 again. However, I think erring on the side of assuming the proposer is serious and allowing the community to discuss it just in case is the right thing to do.
Thanks,
Owen
-- 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
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
Despite the rumour that Australia is backward and our electricity comes from treadmills powered by furiously running wombats, we are able to spot a prank from a mile away.
;)
T.
On 24/07/2012, at 6:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Possibility 3) they thought it was some form of prank and were unable to take it seriously.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 22, 2012, at 8:46 PM, Terry Manderson terry@terrym.net wrote:
I forwarded the policy proposal to the AusNOG list. It garnered zero discussion. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
Your own interpretations may vary, but that hints at 2 possibilities to me.
People in AU are apathetic if the policy either passes or does not. Which may well support Randy's position that there isn't anything left (policy wise) to get enthusiastic about.
People in AU (generally) are well removed from policy and provided as they have a direction forward to keeping their networks running, then they will just get on with it as their business directs.
T.
On 12/07/2012, at 7:34 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
After consultation with people within the NZ community both online and in person at the current Nethui event, there is not a lot of support for the proposal in its current form.
What there is however, is an acknowledgement that there may be a change required in the PDP process, and a willingness to engage to discuss such changes.
Randy, would you as the proposer be open to making amendments to this proposal? Or would you rather that it stand as currently written?
Regards Dean
On Monday, July 9, 2012, Dean Pemberton wrote: I agree with Owen here. If this is really something that Randy wants to bring to the table, then I believe that the chairs have made the correct decision bringing it to the list.
I will socialise the proposal around the New Zealand community and bring that and my own commentary back to the list.
Regards, Dean
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Owen DeLong owen@delong.com wrote:
Andy,
I think the chairs made the correct decision in posting this to the list.
While I believe that the policy is without merit and would actually be quite harmful, if adopted, I believe it is within scope of the PDP and that the community and not the chairs alone should make that determination. I can certainly understand the difficulty in determining whether to take such a proposal seriously, as my initial reaction was to see if I'd lost track of time and it was already April 1 again. However, I think erring on the side of assuming the proposer is serious and allowing the community to discuss it just in case is the right thing to do.
Thanks,
Owen
-- 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
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 want to comment on the process of posting of Prop-103. There was
debate between the Chair and Co-chairs about whether this proposal
should proceed. I have decided to post the proposal based on the
following.
The key criteria from the APNIC SIG guidelines are:
The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion at
the forthcoming SIG session if:
1) The proposal is out of scope for the SIG
2) The proposal is insufficiently developed to be the basis for a
useful discussion
3) The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority
Item 1
+++++
The guidelines say:
Dissolving a SIG
It is not assumed that a SIG will continue to exist indefinitely. Each
SIG should periodically review its charter to assess the SIG’s
usefulness and relevance.
Signs that a SIG may have outlived its purpose include:
- Lack of discussion on the mailing lists for more than one year
- Lack of response to calls for presentations at SIG sessions
- Low attendance at SIG sessions
A SIG may be dissolved if the members of the SIG decide that this is
an appropriate course of action and this recommendation is approved by
the AMM. Members of the SIG may make the decision to dissolve the SIG
via the SIG mailing list or at SIG sessions. If a SIG is dissolved,
all associated mailing lists will be closed for subscription, but the
public archives will remain on the APNIC website.
---
It's clear to me that this is a decision that only the SIG can take
(with agreement from the AMM). This proposal effectively asks for that
to happen. Note that the criteria are signs and not requirements and
it's not the role of the Policy SIG chairs to decide what the
membership of the SIG might think here.
Item 2
+++++
There was debate among the chairs whether the met this criteria.
I believe it asks us to look at the Policy SIG's processes and
rationale for existence as the guidelines suggest.
It seems to me that such a discussion may go two ways:
a) the proposal gets rejected out of hand because everything is just
fine the way it is
b) the proposal provokes discussion and leads to an improvement in the
way the Policy SIG operates
Item 3
+++++
At this stage our agenda isn't so full that we need to reject this proposal.
* 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
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Andy Linton asjl@lpnz.org wrote:
It seems to me that such a discussion may go two ways:
a) the proposal gets rejected out of hand because everything is just fine the way it is b) the proposal provokes discussion and leads to an improvement in the way the Policy SIG operates
Of course, I should have noted that there is a third option:
c) the proposal is accepted as written
My apologies to the author.
Of course, I should have noted that there is a third option: c) the proposal is accepted as written My apologies to the author.
i demand a full refund :)
and yes, i was serious in submitting the proposal. so far, i think drc's analysis is pretty good as is mucho's comment.
i expect the career junior policy wonks (apologies for american idiom, but it fits, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wonk) to push back heavily, but won't see most as i plonked them long ago. i guess i will scan the archive.
randy
Kudos to you Andy, and the chairs, for bringing this to the list.
While I'm sure there was debate between you, I have the feeling that this proposal may be one of those major milestone moments in the life of address policy.
Cheers Terry (usual mantra, speaking for myself)
On 09/07/2012, at 3:32 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
I want to comment on the process of posting of Prop-103. There was debate between the Chair and Co-chairs about whether this proposal should proceed. I have decided to post the proposal based on the following.
The key criteria from the APNIC SIG guidelines are:
The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion at the forthcoming SIG session if:
- The proposal is out of scope for the SIG
- The proposal is insufficiently developed to be the basis for a
useful discussion 3) The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority
Item 1 +++++
The guidelines say:
Dissolving a SIG
It is not assumed that a SIG will continue to exist indefinitely. Each SIG should periodically review its charter to assess the SIG’s usefulness and relevance.
Signs that a SIG may have outlived its purpose include:
- Lack of discussion on the mailing lists for more than one year
- Lack of response to calls for presentations at SIG sessions
- Low attendance at SIG sessions
A SIG may be dissolved if the members of the SIG decide that this is an appropriate course of action and this recommendation is approved by the AMM. Members of the SIG may make the decision to dissolve the SIG via the SIG mailing list or at SIG sessions. If a SIG is dissolved, all associated mailing lists will be closed for subscription, but the public archives will remain on the APNIC website.
It's clear to me that this is a decision that only the SIG can take (with agreement from the AMM). This proposal effectively asks for that to happen. Note that the criteria are signs and not requirements and it's not the role of the Policy SIG chairs to decide what the membership of the SIG might think here.
Item 2 +++++
There was debate among the chairs whether the met this criteria.
I believe it asks us to look at the Policy SIG's processes and rationale for existence as the guidelines suggest.
It seems to me that such a discussion may go two ways:
a) the proposal gets rejected out of hand because everything is just fine the way it is b) the proposal provokes discussion and leads to an improvement in the way the Policy SIG operates
Item 3 +++++
At this stage our agenda isn't so full that we need to reject this proposal.
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
- 4145 days inactive
- 4145 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 11 participants
- 26 comments