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 2 of the proposal 'Change in the criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 26 in Christchurch, New Zealand, 25-29 August 2008.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-060-v002.html
This new version of the proposal contains a shortened section 2, "Summary of current problem" and removes points 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 from section 4, "Details of the proposal".
This revised proposal will be discussed in the Policy SIG this morning. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
randy and jian
________________________________________________________________________
prop-060-v002: Change in the criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region ________________________________________________________________________
Author: Kusumba Sridhar kusumba@vebtel.com
Version: 2
Date: 28 August 2008
1. Introduction ----------------
This is a proposal to update the criteria for recognising new National Internet Registries (NIRs) in the APNIC region.
The current criteria are described in the following policy document:
APNIC-104: Criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region http://www.apnic.net/policy/nir-criteria.html
2. Summary of current problem ------------------------------
The existing Policy frame work was last published on 1st December 2002 and the same was not re-visited since then. There has been significant change in the Political, Economic and Operational situations in various economies, especially the growing economies. The very structure of Internet and its Resources has changed in several economies. The industry participation has also grown significantly leading Internet to be as ubiquitous as any other resource like Electricity, Water, Shelter etc., In such a situation, it is important that the very industry decides the future and applicability of the Internet resources and also controls them through a community friendly environment. The Government, while taking a neutral position, is required to support such resources but must refrain from controlling the same.
The current NIR recognizing criteria requires any Industry representation to have endorsement of the proposal from the Government agency (Section 3.1) that is responsible for Internet related activities including issuing licenses to ISPs etc in a respective country. APNIC considers any application without such endorsement as "in-complete" proposal and will not forward to the Executive Council for processing or approving a NIR.
However, in a situation where such proposal is originated by a unit or division or department of the Government, such proposal could go through since the Government endorsement is easily or sometimes automatically available to them. This is also applicable for National Information Centers, Internet Exchanges etc., that are largely and many times fully controlled and manned by the Government.
It is not automatic agreement that a NIC in any country could be the "first-choice" to form NIR by the Policy. However, in a situation where it is important for the "Internet" itself to move towards a free-regulatory World, unfortunately in the several growing economies it is noticed that Internet is still largely manned by the Government. The readers may kindly appreciate the difference between "controlling" and "manning". Due to several Security, Economic and Political reasons, it may be required that Internet is controlled in such economies.
Due to this, Government has taken control of Infrastructure networks such as NIC, IXPs etc., with participation of Industry up to an extent that it is a meager contributing-participation and not decisive- participation in certain economies.
1. Government represented agencies will be having control on Internet Resource allocation in the economy, if such NIR is formed by Government controlled agency.
2. Policy only indicates but may not restrict Government to enforce rules to obtain resources from NIR and not APNIC directly.
3. Government under the ambit of National Security may demonstrate the need for the Service Providers to only obtain resources from regional NIR and not from APNIC despite the policy indication.
4. Member or User community may loose opportunity to grow the networks largely due to very reason that they may need to obtain Internet resources only from such NIR and the regulator who is also directly associated with such NIRs or Policy makers, may dismiss or delay such allocation requests against any pending issue or matter concerned to that Service provider and the government or Regulator.
5. Despite NIR proposal being sent through a Government controlled agency, the EC may have right to reject such proposal if it has noticed suitable objections from members. However, in the current policy criteria, the scope of such objections is only "external" and not within the policy framework or work flow.
3. Situation in other RIRs ----------------------------
ARIN, RIPE and AfriNIC do not have NIRs. LACNIC has NIRs but does not have a policy document for the recognition of new NIRs.
4. Details of the proposal ----------------------------
Proposed changes in the policy:
1. Any NIR application must be put on voting process, both through Online Voting and Voting at AMM and must achieve support.
OR
2. Any NIR application must be put on voting process, both through Online Voting and Voting at AMM and must achieve at least 75% support from the members within that Economy. In such a case, voting is open only for members from that Economy.
3. Section 3.2.2 must mention that the Board composition of the NIR must have majority representation from Members, followed by Academic or Research Organizations etc. The Government or its participating agencies must have minor role compared to other representations on the Board of NIR.
5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal -------------------------------------------------
There are several advantages of adopting such policy:
1. Neutrality which is inline to "Open Policy" levels while considering a NIR proposal.
2. Mandates Global Policies for creating Free Access to Internet Resources.
3. Improves participation by membership community in Internet Development.
4. Removes the Conditional Policy barriers in several countries where the Governments cannot impose such conditional terms for obtaining resources.
There are no disadvantages by adopting the policy.
6. Effect on APNIC --------------------
APNIC members would be benefited by such policy since they don't have to fear for undergoing conditional allocations of resources. At the same time, membership communities in several countries, if eligible by this policy, will be able to form NIR that is community controlled rather than any incumbent or Government controlled NIR.
7. Effect on NIRs -------------------
There is no effect on NIRs.
Some comments:
- there is no problem statement in Section 2 which purports to declare what the problem is.
- Section 4, item 2. "Members" is mentioned without context. NIR members? APNIC members? Other members, and if so what of?
- Section 4, item 3. I can't see how APNIC or anyone else can dictate to any sovereign Government that it will have a minor role in an NIR. If an NIR truly represents the economy it is located in, surely all interested parties in that economy will establish exactly what the representation should be?
- Section 5. None of the advantages listed are obvious from reading the text as it stands. I can see substantial disadvantages though.
- Section 6. "APNIC members undergo conditional allocations". Please explain. No evidence provided in text. First mention of creation of NIR covering communities in multiple countries - what is the rationale for this?
- Section 7 I believe is incomplete. This policy proposal has substantial impact on the existing NIRs as it changes the fundamental basis for their existence as it would be entirely feasible for another organisation or group of organisations to establish themselves as an NIR within the existing NIR's operational area. This would quite likely be counter to the existing NIR's rules of association.
I believe this proposal needs substantial work to resolve the issues I mentioned above. As it stands, it has significant impact on the entire APNIC, NIR and LIR structure and relationship; I feel this needs to be carefully considered and documented.
philip --
Randy Bush said the following on 28/8/08 06:46:
Dear SIG members
Version 2 of the proposal 'Change in the criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 26 in Christchurch, New Zealand, 25-29 August 2008.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-060-v002.htmlThis new version of the proposal contains a shortened section 2, "Summary of current problem" and removes points 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 from section 4, "Details of the proposal".
This revised proposal will be discussed in the Policy SIG this morning. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?randy and jian
prop-060-v002: Change in the criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region ________________________________________________________________________
Author: Kusumba Sridhar kusumba@vebtel.com
Version: 2
Date: 28 August 2008
- Introduction
This is a proposal to update the criteria for recognising new National Internet Registries (NIRs) in the APNIC region.
The current criteria are described in the following policy document:
APNIC-104: Criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region http://www.apnic.net/policy/nir-criteria.html
- Summary of current problem
The existing Policy frame work was last published on 1st December 2002 and the same was not re-visited since then. There has been significant change in the Political, Economic and Operational situations in various economies, especially the growing economies. The very structure of Internet and its Resources has changed in several economies. The industry participation has also grown significantly leading Internet to be as ubiquitous as any other resource like Electricity, Water, Shelter etc., In such a situation, it is important that the very industry decides the future and applicability of the Internet resources and also controls them through a community friendly environment. The Government, while taking a neutral position, is required to support such resources but must refrain from controlling the same.
The current NIR recognizing criteria requires any Industry representation to have endorsement of the proposal from the Government agency (Section 3.1) that is responsible for Internet related activities including issuing licenses to ISPs etc in a respective country. APNIC considers any application without such endorsement as "in-complete" proposal and will not forward to the Executive Council for processing or approving a NIR.
However, in a situation where such proposal is originated by a unit or division or department of the Government, such proposal could go through since the Government endorsement is easily or sometimes automatically available to them. This is also applicable for National Information Centers, Internet Exchanges etc., that are largely and many times fully controlled and manned by the Government.
It is not automatic agreement that a NIC in any country could be the "first-choice" to form NIR by the Policy. However, in a situation where it is important for the "Internet" itself to move towards a free-regulatory World, unfortunately in the several growing economies it is noticed that Internet is still largely manned by the Government. The readers may kindly appreciate the difference between "controlling" and "manning". Due to several Security, Economic and Political reasons, it may be required that Internet is controlled in such economies.
Due to this, Government has taken control of Infrastructure networks such as NIC, IXPs etc., with participation of Industry up to an extent that it is a meager contributing-participation and not decisive- participation in certain economies.
1. Government represented agencies will be having control on Internet Resource allocation in the economy, if such NIR is formed by Government controlled agency. 2. Policy only indicates but may not restrict Government to enforce rules to obtain resources from NIR and not APNIC directly. 3. Government under the ambit of National Security may demonstrate the need for the Service Providers to only obtain resources from regional NIR and not from APNIC despite the policy indication. 4. Member or User community may loose opportunity to grow the networks largely due to very reason that they may need to obtain Internet resources only from such NIR and the regulator who is also directly associated with such NIRs or Policy makers, may dismiss or delay such allocation requests against any pending issue or matter concerned to that Service provider and the government or Regulator. 5. Despite NIR proposal being sent through a Government controlled agency, the EC may have right to reject such proposal if it has noticed suitable objections from members. However, in the current policy criteria, the scope of such objections is only "external" and not within the policy framework or work flow.
- Situation in other RIRs
ARIN, RIPE and AfriNIC do not have NIRs. LACNIC has NIRs but does not have a policy document for the recognition of new NIRs.
- Details of the proposal
Proposed changes in the policy:
Any NIR application must be put on voting process, both through Online Voting and Voting at AMM and must achieve support.
ORAny NIR application must be put on voting process, both through Online Voting and Voting at AMM and must achieve at least 75% support from the members within that Economy. In such a case, voting is open only for members from that Economy.
Section 3.2.2 must mention that the Board composition of the NIR must have majority representation from Members, followed by Academic or Research Organizations etc. The Government or its participating agencies must have minor role compared to other representations on the Board of NIR.
Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
There are several advantages of adopting such policy:
Neutrality which is inline to "Open Policy" levels while considering a NIR proposal.
Mandates Global Policies for creating Free Access to Internet Resources.
Improves participation by membership community in Internet Development.
Removes the Conditional Policy barriers in several countries where the Governments cannot impose such conditional terms for obtaining resources.
There are no disadvantages by adopting the policy.
- Effect on APNIC
APNIC members would be benefited by such policy since they don't have to fear for undergoing conditional allocations of resources. At the same time, membership communities in several countries, if eligible by this policy, will be able to form NIR that is community controlled rather than any incumbent or Government controlled NIR.
- Effect on NIRs
There is no effect on NIRs.
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 Philip's comments. The proposal as it stands is very unclear in the problem that it is trying to solve.
I'm also not comfortable with using APNIC policies as a tool to control Governments in countries. This seems inappropriate and leading down a particularly slippery path.
The issue raised by Leo around whether it could lead to multiple NIRs being established in a single economy is also one that needs to be addressed.
I don't have much experience in the NIR arena, but as it stands I don't support this policy - if the problem statement can be made clearer it would be helpful in deciding whether to support in the future.
aj
Philip Smith wrote:
Some comments:
- there is no problem statement in Section 2 which purports to declare
what the problem is.
- Section 4, item 2. "Members" is mentioned without context. NIR
members? APNIC members? Other members, and if so what of?
- Section 4, item 3. I can't see how APNIC or anyone else can dictate to
any sovereign Government that it will have a minor role in an NIR. If an NIR truly represents the economy it is located in, surely all interested parties in that economy will establish exactly what the representation should be?
- Section 5. None of the advantages listed are obvious from reading the
text as it stands. I can see substantial disadvantages though.
- Section 6. "APNIC members undergo conditional allocations". Please
explain. No evidence provided in text. First mention of creation of NIR covering communities in multiple countries - what is the rationale for this?
- Section 7 I believe is incomplete. This policy proposal has
substantial impact on the existing NIRs as it changes the fundamental basis for their existence as it would be entirely feasible for another organisation or group of organisations to establish themselves as an NIR within the existing NIR's operational area. This would quite likely be counter to the existing NIR's rules of association.
I believe this proposal needs substantial work to resolve the issues I mentioned above. As it stands, it has significant impact on the entire APNIC, NIR and LIR structure and relationship; I feel this needs to be carefully considered and documented.
Alastair,
Our current NIR criteria allow only a single NIR to be established in an economy/a country. See section 2.1 of it.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/nir-criteria.html
I would agree that further clarification is needed.
Thanks!
Akinori, an NIR manager, could be for the country ANIME ;-)
In message 48B5CE9F.801@sneep.net "Re: [sig-policy] revised: prop-060" "Alastair Johnson aj@sneep.net" wrote:
| I agree with Philip's comments. The proposal as it stands is very | unclear in the problem that it is trying to solve. | | I'm also not comfortable with using APNIC policies as a tool to control | Governments in countries. This seems inappropriate and leading down a | particularly slippery path. | | The issue raised by Leo around whether it could lead to multiple NIRs | being established in a single economy is also one that needs to be | addressed. | | I don't have much experience in the NIR arena, but as it stands I don't | support this policy - if the problem statement can be made clearer it | would be helpful in deciding whether to support in the future. | | aj | | Philip Smith wrote: | > Some comments: | > | > - there is no problem statement in Section 2 which purports to declare | > what the problem is. | > | > - Section 4, item 2. "Members" is mentioned without context. NIR | > members? APNIC members? Other members, and if so what of? | > | > - Section 4, item 3. I can't see how APNIC or anyone else can dictate to | > any sovereign Government that it will have a minor role in an NIR. If an | > NIR truly represents the economy it is located in, surely all interested | > parties in that economy will establish exactly what the representation | > should be? | > | > - Section 5. None of the advantages listed are obvious from reading the | > text as it stands. I can see substantial disadvantages though. | > | > - Section 6. "APNIC members undergo conditional allocations". Please | > explain. No evidence provided in text. First mention of creation of NIR | > covering communities in multiple countries - what is the rationale for this? | > | > - Section 7 I believe is incomplete. This policy proposal has | > substantial impact on the existing NIRs as it changes the fundamental | > basis for their existence as it would be entirely feasible for another | > organisation or group of organisations to establish themselves as an NIR | > within the existing NIR's operational area. This would quite likely be | > counter to the existing NIR's rules of association. | > | > I believe this proposal needs substantial work to resolve the issues I | > mentioned above. As it stands, it has significant impact on the entire | > APNIC, NIR and LIR structure and relationship; I feel this needs to be | > carefully considered and documented. | | * 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 |
Dear Philip and everyone,
Thank you for the comments below and I apologise if I have been not clear in my Policy proposal document. I have clarified several aspects of the same as needed below:
Some comments:
- there is no problem statement in Section 2 which purports to declare
what the problem is.
Kusumba S >>> Due to the current change in the Political, Economical and Regulatory affairs in several countries, it has been evident that NIRs are more becoming a functional and integral body of any Government represented, controlled or manned agency. Some of these trends may have resulted in the "community" not being able to have "right to resources" for few of their internal reasons. Internet resources are neither owned or belong or can be controlled by any Government represented agency. The same should be under the control of the community and membership (APNIC) represented agency. Also, since NIR is not a "infrastructure" agency that may need Government support, NIRs not necessarily require Government support or endorsement at all. Hence, considering NIR being formed by such agencies shall prove difficult for community, members and shall have impact on various Internet resources affairs in that territory and infringes the very purpose of "Free (not by cost) Access to Internet Resources".
- Section 4, item 2. "Members" is mentioned without context. NIR
members? APNIC members? Other members, and if so what of?
Kusumba S >>> "Members" here are APNIC members. In a situation where NIR is largely manned by the local Government represented agency, the current Policy does not restrict them to enforce any such policies which will direct the Member to obtain resources only from the local NIR and not APNIC. The current rule-position is only indicative that a member "may" obtain resources from APNIC instead of NIR but that does not restrict the local NIR to constrain the member to obtain the resources only from NIR.
- Section 4, item 3. I can't see how APNIC or anyone else can dictate to
any sovereign Government that it will have a minor role in an NIR. If an NIR truly represents the economy it is located in, surely all interested parties in that economy will establish exactly what the representation should be?
Kusumba S >>> The situation is not complicated. It is rather this way: If there were no members nor no APNIC, where is the question of NIR ? So, it is obvious that only when there are Members in a country, NIR is possible. But the same NIR cannot be an automatic right of any Government in that country since it is not NIR that came first but the members and APNIC. So, APNIC's community has all reasons to establish a policy that is not taken as advantage by any Government in the region to control the local Members and their resources.
- Section 5. None of the advantages listed are obvious from reading the
text as it stands. I can see substantial disadvantages though.
Kusumba S >>> The advantages as seen are from the community / membership stand point that they are not either controlled or regulated by local Government agency under the ambit of NIR and refrain them from obtain Internet resources as needed from APNIC or other Membership / community controlled NIR.
I will also appreciate if you can highlight here the disadvantages that you see.
- Section 6. "APNIC members undergo conditional allocations". Please
explain. No evidence provided in text. First mention of creation of NIR covering communities in multiple countries - what is the rationale for this?
Kusumba S >>> As explained above, the current policy does not restrict NIR that is not community oriented to establish rules that will insist the local members to only obtain resources from NIR and not from APNIC. While allotting or considering the resource request, NIR may impose several conditions that are otherwise not needed for obtaining resources if taken directly from APNIC.
I have the following text that probably explains the other part:
At the same time, _membership community in such country, _if eligible by this policy, will be able to form NIR that is community controlled rather than any incumbent or Government controlled NIR.
- Section 7 I believe is incomplete. This policy proposal has
substantial impact on the existing NIRs as it changes the fundamental basis for their existence as it would be entirely feasible for another organisation or group of organisations to establish themselves as an NIR within the existing NIR's operational area. This would quite likely be counter to the existing NIR's rules of association.
Kusumba S >>> The policy proposal does not question or change any position of the existing NIRs. It recommends a revised criteria to recognize a new NIR in a given country. Hence, no impact on existing NIRs.
I believe this proposal needs substantial work to resolve the issues I mentioned above. As it stands, it has significant impact on the entire APNIC, NIR and LIR structure and relationship; I feel this needs to be carefully considered and documented.
Kusumba S >>> I will be happy to provide additional information / comments / material for the you all to consider here.
Greetings,
Kusumba S
philip
Randy Bush said the following on 28/8/08 06:46:
Dear SIG members
Version 2 of the proposal 'Change in the criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 26 in Christchurch, New Zealand, 25-29 August 2008.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-060-v002.htmlThis new version of the proposal contains a shortened section 2, "Summary of current problem" and removes points 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 from section 4, "Details of the proposal".
This revised proposal will be discussed in the Policy SIG this morning. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?randy and jian
prop-060-v002: Change in the criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region ________________________________________________________________________
Author: Kusumba Sridhar kusumba@vebtel.com
Version: 2
Date: 28 August 2008
- Introduction
This is a proposal to update the criteria for recognising new National Internet Registries (NIRs) in the APNIC region.
The current criteria are described in the following policy document:
APNIC-104: Criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region http://www.apnic.net/policy/nir-criteria.html
- Summary of current problem
The existing Policy frame work was last published on 1st December 2002 and the same was not re-visited since then. There has been significant change in the Political, Economic and Operational situations in various economies, especially the growing economies. The very structure of Internet and its Resources has changed in several economies. The industry participation has also grown significantly leading Internet to be as ubiquitous as any other resource like Electricity, Water, Shelter etc., In such a situation, it is important that the very industry decides the future and applicability of the Internet resources and also controls them through a community friendly environment. The Government, while taking a neutral position, is required to support such resources but must refrain from controlling the same.
The current NIR recognizing criteria requires any Industry representation to have endorsement of the proposal from the Government agency (Section 3.1) that is responsible for Internet related activities including issuing licenses to ISPs etc in a respective country. APNIC considers any application without such endorsement as "in-complete" proposal and will not forward to the Executive Council for processing or approving a NIR.
However, in a situation where such proposal is originated by a unit or division or department of the Government, such proposal could go through since the Government endorsement is easily or sometimes automatically available to them. This is also applicable for National Information Centers, Internet Exchanges etc., that are largely and many times fully controlled and manned by the Government.
It is not automatic agreement that a NIC in any country could be the "first-choice" to form NIR by the Policy. However, in a situation where it is important for the "Internet" itself to move towards a free-regulatory World, unfortunately in the several growing economies it is noticed that Internet is still largely manned by the Government. The readers may kindly appreciate the difference between "controlling" and "manning". Due to several Security, Economic and Political reasons, it may be required that Internet is controlled in such economies.
Due to this, Government has taken control of Infrastructure networks such as NIC, IXPs etc., with participation of Industry up to an extent that it is a meager contributing-participation and not decisive- participation in certain economies.
1. Government represented agencies will be having control on Internet Resource allocation in the economy, if such NIR is formed by Government controlled agency. 2. Policy only indicates but may not restrict Government to enforce rules to obtain resources from NIR and not APNIC directly. 3. Government under the ambit of National Security may demonstrate the need for the Service Providers to only obtain resources from regional NIR and not from APNIC despite the policy indication. 4. Member or User community may loose opportunity to grow the networks largely due to very reason that they may need to obtain Internet resources only from such NIR and the regulator who is also directly associated with such NIRs or Policy makers, may dismiss or delay such allocation requests against any pending issue or matter concerned to that Service provider and the government or Regulator. 5. Despite NIR proposal being sent through a Government controlled agency, the EC may have right to reject such proposal if it has noticed suitable objections from members. However, in the current policy criteria, the scope of such objections is only "external" and not within the policy framework or work flow.
- Situation in other RIRs
ARIN, RIPE and AfriNIC do not have NIRs. LACNIC has NIRs but does not have a policy document for the recognition of new NIRs.
- Details of the proposal
Proposed changes in the policy:
Any NIR application must be put on voting process, both through Online Voting and Voting at AMM and must achieve support.
ORAny NIR application must be put on voting process, both through Online Voting and Voting at AMM and must achieve at least 75% support from the members within that Economy. In such a case, voting is open only for members from that Economy.
Section 3.2.2 must mention that the Board composition of the NIR must have majority representation from Members, followed by Academic or Research Organizations etc. The Government or its participating agencies must have minor role compared to other representations on the Board of NIR.
Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
There are several advantages of adopting such policy:
Neutrality which is inline to "Open Policy" levels while considering a NIR proposal.
Mandates Global Policies for creating Free Access to Internet Resources.
Improves participation by membership community in Internet Development.
Removes the Conditional Policy barriers in several countries where the Governments cannot impose such conditional terms for obtaining resources.
There are no disadvantages by adopting the policy.
- Effect on APNIC
APNIC members would be benefited by such policy since they don't have to fear for undergoing conditional allocations of resources. At the same time, membership communities in several countries, if eligible by this policy, will be able to form NIR that is community controlled rather than any incumbent or Government controlled NIR.
- Effect on NIRs
There is no effect on NIRs.
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
Activity Summary
- 5514 days inactive
- 5514 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 5 participants
- 4 comments