Orbit

Fine for me !

The presentation is already available here:

https://2021.apricot.net/assets/files/APSr481/apnic-policy-document-review-r...

and also the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDUi84sTqcY&t=8m20s

Regards, Jordi @jordipalet

?El 16/4/21 10:03, "Amrita Choudhury" amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in escribió:

Thank you Betrand and Ching-Heng,

Yes will reach out to some community member(s) from the region for the co-chair position and will update in sometime.

Thanks Jordi for sharing your document.

However I would suggest that we take a step back and first review the presentation and document shared by the secretariat so that everyone is in the same page and then move forward.

May I please request the APNIC secretariat to share the presentation in the mailing group please.

Regards,

Amrita

-----Original Message----- From: chku chku@twnic.tw Sent: 16 April 2021 09:10 To: wg-pdr wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] Fw: Re: Let's start working !

Dear WG colleagues,

Thank you again for your willingness to participate in the PDR working group. We also thank Amrita Choudhury for expressing her willingness to serve as the Chair of this WG and to lead the discussions.

Policy SIG Chairs will now kindly request the WG Chair to appoint a Co-Chair and to kick-start the related WG meetings and discussions ASAP.

Have a nice day and health.

Best regards, Bertrand and Ching-Heng Policy SIG Chairs

-----Original message----- From:Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@micrologic.nc To:wg-pdr@apnic.net Date:Wed, 14 Apr 2021 06:25:48 Subject:[wg-pdr] Let's start working !

Hello everybody !

Amrita Choudhury will be Chairing this Policy Document Review Working Group

I wish you all the best !

Have a great day,

-- Bertrand Cherrier ____________________ Micro Logic Systems https://www.mls.nc Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi Sunny,

I think, to avoid confusions in one of the inputs from your slides, it will be good to have the INRP updated with the implementation of prop-133.

I recall it has passed the last call a few days ago and I'm not sure if you will propose any editorial comment in that text, etc., or otherwise when do you expect the web page of the INRP to be updated with that?

Regards, Jordi @jordipalet

?El 18/4/21 3:57, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:

Hi Amrita and all,

As requested, Policy document review report presentation is attached.

Here is the URL for APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies document https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources

Please let me know if you need any other documents and/or details.

Regards Sunny

On 16/04/2021 6:02 pm, Amrita Choudhury wrote: > Thank you Betrand and Ching-Heng, > > Yes will reach out to some community member(s) from the region for the co-chair position and will update in sometime. > > Thanks Jordi for sharing your document. > > However I would suggest that we take a step back and first review the presentation and document shared by the secretariat so that everyone is in the same page and then move forward. > > May I please request the APNIC secretariat to share the presentation in the mailing group please. > > Regards, > > Amrita > > -----Original Message----- > From: chku chku@twnic.tw > Sent: 16 April 2021 09:10 > To: wg-pdr wg-pdr@apnic.net > Subject: [wg-pdr] Fw: Re: Let's start working ! > > Dear WG colleagues, > > Thank you again for your willingness to participate in the PDR working group. > We also thank Amrita Choudhury for expressing her willingness to serve as the Chair of this WG and to lead the discussions. > > Policy SIG Chairs will now kindly request the WG Chair to appoint a Co-Chair and to kick-start the related WG meetings and discussions ASAP. > > Have a nice day and health. > > Best regards, > Bertrand and Ching-Heng > Policy SIG Chairs > > -----Original message----- > From:Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@micrologic.nc To:wg-pdr@apnic.net Date:Wed, 14 Apr 2021 06:25:48 Subject:[wg-pdr] Let's start working ! > > Hello everybody ! > > Amrita Choudhury will be Chairing this Policy Document Review Working Group > > I wish you all the best ! > > Have a great day, > > -- > Bertrand Cherrier > ____________________ > Micro Logic Systems > https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mls.nc... > Tél : +687 24 99 24 > VoIP : 65 24 99 24 > SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) > _______________________________________________ > [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ > [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net > _______________________________________________ > [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net > To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

--

_______________________________________________________________________

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi Jordi and Anupam,

Prop-133 is sent to the APNIC EC for endorsement. As per PDP, Secretariat will update the policy document and open call for editorial comment after EC endorsed the proposal. Implementation of this proposal is just a small update to Section 2.2.3 only.

Dear WG Chairs,

This process will take sometime so in the meantime, request you to start the discussion on the recommendations put forward in the Policy document review report.

Regards Sunny

On 18/04/2021 9:40 pm, Anupam Agrawal wrote:

Yes a baseline has to be fixed. Whatever it is post prop 133 or pre.

Regards

---

Anupam Agrawal | India Internet Foundation - Chair | 91 990 399 2838

...

On 18-Apr-2021, at 2:23 PM, Jordi Palet Martínez via [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group <wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net> wrote:

Hi Sunny,

I think, to avoid confusions in one of the inputs from your slides, it will be good to have the INRP updated with the implementation of prop-133.

I recall it has passed the last call a few days ago and I'm not sure if you will propose any editorial comment in that text, etc., or otherwise when do you expect the web page of the INRP to be updated with that?

Regards, Jordi @jordipalet

?El 18/4/21 3:57, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net> escribió:

Hi Amrita and all,

As requested, Policy document review report presentation is attached.

Here is the URL for APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies document https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fcommunity%2Fpolicy%2Fresources&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca1a72a2718b34c6b38ab08d9025ec43b%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637543428340758198%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=UTCbEFkLvAXEr2s7cL7uXMHXFZAdvzogDsEJj%2FNAi8c%3D&reserved=0

Please let me know if you need any other documents and/or details.

Regards    Sunny

On 16/04/2021 6:02 pm, Amrita Choudhury wrote:

...

Thank you Betrand and Ching-Heng,

Yes will reach out to some community member(s) from the region for the co-chair position and will update in sometime.

Thanks Jordi for sharing your document.

However I would suggest that we take a step back and first review the presentation and document shared by the secretariat so that everyone is in the same page and then move forward.

May I please request the APNIC secretariat to share the presentation in the mailing group please.

Regards,

Amrita

-----Original Message----- From: chku <chku@twnic.tw mailto:chku@twnic.tw> Sent: 16 April 2021 09:10 To: wg-pdr <wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net> Subject: [wg-pdr] Fw: Re: Let's start working !

Dear WG colleagues,

Thank you again for your willingness to participate in the PDR working group. We also thank Amrita Choudhury for expressing her willingness to serve as the Chair of this WG and to lead the discussions.

Policy SIG Chairs will now kindly request the WG Chair to appoint a Co-Chair and to kick-start the related WG meetings and discussions ASAP.

Have a nice day and health.

Best regards, Bertrand and Ching-Heng Policy SIG Chairs

-----Original message----- From:Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> To:wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Date:Wed, 14 Apr 2021 06:25:48 Subject:[wg-pdr] Let's start working !

Hello everybody !

Amrita Choudhury will be Chairing this Policy Document Review Working Group

I wish you all the best !

Have a great day,

-- Bertrand Cherrier ____________________ Micro Logic Systems https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mls.nc... https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mls.nc%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca1a72a2718b34c6b38ab08d9025ec43b%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637543428340758198%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=n35MTfraQEaV7KoSiKALM1%2Bm0c6Wm5UIRsJDZhVnpKQ%3D&reserved=0 Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

--

_______________________________________________________________________

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi    Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100    PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199    6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD          | http://www.apnic.net https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca1a72a2718b34c6b38ab08d9025ec43b%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637543428340768191%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=FjePIcvZ6445LZ8MQnPQd2jo7HueU%2BzgP%2BDGs60kEPA%3D&reserved=0    _______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________    [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net    To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

---

IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca1a72a2718b34c6b38ab08d9025ec43b%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637543428340768191%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=lo7ffu9bCiv0yuSGXAmwL8fgmntNPOqZZ55ksR3zG%2B8%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

---

[wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

---

[wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

Hi Amrita,

On 19/04/2021 10:31 am, Amrita Choudhury wrote:

I agree Sunny we should begin discussing the recommendations one by one. Perhaps we begin with the first observation over the lack of

f clarity in definitions was the first observation. Secretariat please confirm. DO you think we could start the discussion from that point?

Yes, slide #8. You may start the discussion from that slide.

Regards Sunny

Hello all

To understand Daniel’s contribution here I had to copy the current policy and compare with his proposed text.

His proposal responds to slide 9 of Sunny's report. "Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive”.

Daniel, thanks for your contribution. I think it merges the two previous sections efficiently and accurately and I would support it as a policy proposal or even as a community-driven editorial change proposed in a draft document by the Secretariat.

Anyway.

The conversation moved on a little, but I wanted to ask if there is a way to more efficiently share proposals with mark-up. A dropbox or something, perhaps?

Adam

On 19 Apr 2021, at 1:43 pm, Daniel Cornish danielcornish1988@gmail.com wrote:

Hi all,

I'll start. 5.6. General requirements for requests

All requests for address space must be supported by the following documentation:

· A statement describing the intended use for the address space

· Details of the organisation’s network infrastructure, such as network diagrams and subnetting plans

· Network equipment invoices and/or approved purchase orders for network equipment

· Any address space currently held by the organisation

· Any historical address space held by the organisation, including previous assignments made from historical address allocations.

In addition to this general requirement, more specific documentation may also be requested, at the IRs discretion. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.

Regards, Dan.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 10:46, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net> wrote: Hi Amrita,

On 19/04/2021 10:31 am, Amrita Choudhury wrote:

...

I agree Sunny we should begin discussing the recommendations one by one. Perhaps we begin with the first observation over the lack of

f clarity in definitions was the first observation. Secretariat please confirm. DO you think we could start the discussion from that point?

Yes, slide #8. You may start the discussion from that slide.

Regards Sunny _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

Hi Amrita,

This is no sense.

If this platform doesn’t support images neither tables, why we don’t use a googledocs?

I totally object to a non-usable platform which make our work more complex.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 4/6/21 8:12, "Amrita Choudhury" amritachoudhury8@gmail.com escribió:

Dear All,

Based on the request from the community for having a platform to worki efficiently, the Secretariat has exported the policy document to the Comment platform. Here is the direct link: https://comment.apnic.net/?page_id=81

Working group members can comment on the platform. Page breaks have been inserted after each major section to help in focussing on the discussions on individual sections.

However there are some limitations:

1. You cannot insert images in the document. You will have to provide the link in the document to the respective images

2. Tables don't render properly

Hope this helps all to collaborate and share your comments/ views/ inputs more efficiently.

Regards,

Amrita

From: Adam Gosling adamgosling@gmail.com Sent: 31 May 2021 09:10 To: Daniel Cornish danielcornish1988@gmail.com Cc: Sunny Chendi sunny@apnic.net; Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in; wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] 5.6. General requirements for requests

Hello all

To understand Daniel’s contribution here I had to copy the current policy and compare with his proposed text.

His proposal responds to slide 9 of Sunny's report. "Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive”.

Daniel, thanks for your contribution. I think it merges the two previous sections efficiently and accurately and I would support it as a policy proposal or even as a community-driven editorial change proposed in a draft document by the Secretariat.

Anyway.

The conversation moved on a little, but I wanted to ask if there is a way to more efficiently share proposals with mark-up. A dropbox or something, perhaps?

Adam

On 19 Apr 2021, at 1:43 pm, Daniel Cornish danielcornish1988@gmail.com wrote:

Hi all,

I'll start.

5.6. General requirements for requests

All requests for address space must be supported by the following documentation:

· A statement describing the intended use for the address space

· Details of the organisation’s network infrastructure, such as network diagrams and subnetting plans

· Network equipment invoices and/or approved purchase orders for network equipment

· Any address space currently held by the organisation

· Any historical address space held by the organisation, including previous assignments made from historical address allocations.

In addition to this general requirement, more specific documentation may also be requested, at the IRs discretion. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.

Regards, Dan.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 10:46, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net wrote:

Hi Amrita,

On 19/04/2021 10:31 am, Amrita Choudhury wrote:

I agree Sunny we should begin discussing the recommendations one by one. Perhaps we begin with the first observation over the lack of

f clarity in definitions was the first observation. Secretariat please confirm. DO you think we could start the discussion from that point?

Yes, slide #8. You may start the discussion from that slide.

Regards Sunny

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi Amrita,

The advantage of googledocs is that you can use: Googledocs Word OpenOffice Many other compatible and *free* open-source tools

So not able to use Google is not a problem for anyone.

Also you can work *off-line* and then dump the changes or comments into the Googledocs or other platform.

There is no sense to have limitations on a specific platform if what we want to achieve is offering the *best* tools to the volunteers working on this.

It is retrograde to not be able to use a tool that is freely availble to *all* in many formats and it is better than the APNIC one being a public document.

Just look at my word document and how easy is to compare old text with as many proposed changes as you want, and thus *facilitate* the work for all of us.

If this is the way to go, then it is just better than each us that it is interested in resolving the issues submits a policy proposal and we don’t need to waste our time with outdated tools that make our work much more complex and dificult.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 4/6/21 8:36, "Amrita Choudhury" amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in escribió:

Dear Jordi,

Your objection is noted.

However as you may be aware that there are places in APAC who cannot access a Google doc (and this is a discussion of APAC region) this mode was suggested.

Further, the first aspect is to collaborate. If there are tables or pictures that need to be inserted, for the moment links can be shared.

Also, there is only one image and one table in the entire document at this moment (the table is in the Appendix section and image just shows the hierarchy of RIRs and NIRs and Members( which is an established phenomena)).

Regards,

Amrita

From: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.palet@theipv6company.com Sent: 04 June 2021 11:58 To: Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury8@gmail.com; 'Adam Gosling' adamgosling@gmail.com; 'Daniel Cornish' danielcornish1988@gmail.com; wg-pdr@apnic.net Cc: 'Sunny Chendi' sunny@apnic.net; 'Amrita Choudhury' amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in Subject: Re: [wg-pdr] Re: 5.6. General requirements for requests

Hi Amrita,

This is no sense.

If this platform doesn’t support images neither tables, why we don’t use a googledocs?

I totally object to a non-usable platform which make our work more complex.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 4/6/21 8:12, "Amrita Choudhury" amritachoudhury8@gmail.com escribió:

Dear All,

Based on the request from the community for having a platform to worki efficiently, the Secretariat has exported the policy document to the Comment platform. Here is the direct link: https://comment.apnic.net/?page_id=81

Working group members can comment on the platform. Page breaks have been inserted after each major section to help in focussing on the discussions on individual sections.

However there are some limitations:

1. You cannot insert images in the document. You will have to provide the link in the document to the respective images

2. Tables don't render properly

Hope this helps all to collaborate and share your comments/ views/ inputs more efficiently.

Regards,

Amrita

From: Adam Gosling adamgosling@gmail.com Sent: 31 May 2021 09:10 To: Daniel Cornish danielcornish1988@gmail.com Cc: Sunny Chendi sunny@apnic.net; Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in; wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] 5.6. General requirements for requests

Hello all

To understand Daniel’s contribution here I had to copy the current policy and compare with his proposed text.

His proposal responds to slide 9 of Sunny's report. "Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive”.

Daniel, thanks for your contribution. I think it merges the two previous sections efficiently and accurately and I would support it as a policy proposal or even as a community-driven editorial change proposed in a draft document by the Secretariat.

Anyway.

The conversation moved on a little, but I wanted to ask if there is a way to more efficiently share proposals with mark-up. A dropbox or something, perhaps?

Adam

On 19 Apr 2021, at 1:43 pm, Daniel Cornish danielcornish1988@gmail.com wrote:

Hi all,

I'll start.

5.6. General requirements for requests

All requests for address space must be supported by the following documentation:

· A statement describing the intended use for the address space

· Details of the organisation’s network infrastructure, such as network diagrams and subnetting plans

· Network equipment invoices and/or approved purchase orders for network equipment

· Any address space currently held by the organisation

· Any historical address space held by the organisation, including previous assignments made from historical address allocations.

In addition to this general requirement, more specific documentation may also be requested, at the IRs discretion. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.

Regards, Dan.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 10:46, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net wrote:

Hi Amrita,

On 19/04/2021 10:31 am, Amrita Choudhury wrote:

I agree Sunny we should begin discussing the recommendations one by one. Perhaps we begin with the first observation over the lack of

f clarity in definitions was the first observation. Secretariat please confirm. DO you think we could start the discussion from that point?

Yes, slide #8. You may start the discussion from that slide.

Regards Sunny

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Thank you Arash for your feedback.

Regards

Amrita

From: Arash Naderpour arash.naderpour@gmail.com Sent: 04 June 2021 12:56 To: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.palet@theipv6company.com Cc: Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in; Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury8@gmail.com; Adam Gosling adamgosling@gmail.com; Daniel Cornish danielcornish1988@gmail.com; wg-pdr@apnic.net; Sunny Chendi sunny@apnic.net Subject: Re: [wg-pdr] Re: 5.6. General requirements for requests

Hi,

I just checked the link to community platform, and it looks good to me to add comments. never used google docs but if it is the same as office365 it should be fine too.

Inserting images is not an important limitation in my opinion, if the final doc is just text.

Regards,

Arash

C

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 4:57 PM Jordi Palet Martínez via [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group <wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net > wrote:

Hi Amrita,

The advantage of googledocs is that you can use:

* Googledocs * Word * OpenOffice * Many other compatible and *free* open-source tools

So not able to use Google is not a problem for anyone.

Also you can work *off-line* and then dump the changes or comments into the Googledocs or other platform.

There is no sense to have limitations on a specific platform if what we want to achieve is offering the *best* tools to the volunteers working on this.

It is retrograde to not be able to use a tool that is freely availble to *all* in many formats and it is better than the APNIC one being a public document.

Just look at my word document and how easy is to compare old text with as many proposed changes as you want, and thus *facilitate* the work for all of us.

If this is the way to go, then it is just better than each us that it is interested in resolving the issues submits a policy proposal and we don’t need to waste our time with outdated tools that make our work much more complex and dificult.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 4/6/21 8:36, "Amrita Choudhury" <amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in mailto:amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in > escribió:

Dear Jordi,

Your objection is noted.

However as you may be aware that there are places in APAC who cannot access a Google doc (and this is a discussion of APAC region) this mode was suggested.

Further, the first aspect is to collaborate. If there are tables or pictures that need to be inserted, for the moment links can be shared.

Also, there is only one image and one table in the entire document at this moment (the table is in the Appendix section and image just shows the hierarchy of RIRs and NIRs and Members( which is an established phenomena)).

Regards,

Amrita

From: Jordi Palet Martínez <jordi.palet@theipv6company.com mailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.com > Sent: 04 June 2021 11:58 To: Amrita Choudhury <amritachoudhury8@gmail.com mailto:amritachoudhury8@gmail.com >; 'Adam Gosling' <adamgosling@gmail.com mailto:adamgosling@gmail.com >; 'Daniel Cornish' <danielcornish1988@gmail.com mailto:danielcornish1988@gmail.com >; wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Cc: 'Sunny Chendi' <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net >; 'Amrita Choudhury' <amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in mailto:amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in > Subject: Re: [wg-pdr] Re: 5.6. General requirements for requests

Hi Amrita,

This is no sense.

If this platform doesn’t support images neither tables, why we don’t use a googledocs?

I totally object to a non-usable platform which make our work more complex.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 4/6/21 8:12, "Amrita Choudhury" <amritachoudhury8@gmail.com mailto:amritachoudhury8@gmail.com > escribió:

Dear All,

Based on the request from the community for having a platform to worki efficiently, the Secretariat has exported the policy document to the Comment platform. Here is the direct link: https://comment.apnic.net/?page_id=81

Working group members can comment on the platform. Page breaks have been inserted after each major section to help in focussing on the discussions on individual sections.

However there are some limitations:

1. You cannot insert images in the document. You will have to provide the link in the document to the respective images

2. Tables don't render properly

Hope this helps all to collaborate and share your comments/ views/ inputs more efficiently.

Regards,

Amrita

From: Adam Gosling <adamgosling@gmail.com mailto:adamgosling@gmail.com > Sent: 31 May 2021 09:10 To: Daniel Cornish <danielcornish1988@gmail.com mailto:danielcornish1988@gmail.com > Cc: Sunny Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net >; Amrita Choudhury <amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in mailto:amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in >; wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] 5.6. General requirements for requests

Hello all

To understand Daniel’s contribution here I had to copy the current policy and compare with his proposed text.

His proposal responds to slide 9 of Sunny's report. "Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive”.

Daniel, thanks for your contribution. I think it merges the two previous sections efficiently and accurately and I would support it as a policy proposal or even as a community-driven editorial change proposed in a draft document by the Secretariat.

Anyway.

The conversation moved on a little, but I wanted to ask if there is a way to more efficiently share proposals with mark-up. A dropbox or something, perhaps?

Adam

On 19 Apr 2021, at 1:43 pm, Daniel Cornish <danielcornish1988@gmail.com mailto:danielcornish1988@gmail.com > wrote:

Hi all,

I'll start.

5.6. General requirements for requests

All requests for address space must be supported by the following documentation:

* A statement describing the intended use for the address space

* Details of the organisation’s network infrastructure, such as network diagrams and subnetting plans

* Network equipment invoices and/or approved purchase orders for network equipment

* Any address space currently held by the organisation

* Any historical address space held by the organisation, including previous assignments made from historical address allocations.

In addition to this general requirement, more specific documentation may also be requested, at the IRs discretion. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.

Regards, Dan.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 10:46, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net > wrote:

Hi Amrita,

On 19/04/2021 10:31 am, Amrita Choudhury wrote:

I agree Sunny we should begin discussing the recommendations one by one. Perhaps we begin with the first observation over the lack of

f clarity in definitions was the first observation. Secretariat please confirm. DO you think we could start the discussion from that point?

Yes, slide #8. You may start the discussion from that slide.

Regards Sunny

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

Excellent work Adam :)

Dear Jordi,

As I mentioned in the previous mail, your objection has been noted. Everyone has a right to their views and we surely respect that.

However, as you may have noted, the other members of this working group has not raised any objection so far to use this platform. In that light, we will encourage people to start using the platform.

Regards,

Amrita

From: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.palet@theipv6company.com Sent: 04 June 2021 12:27 To: Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in; 'Amrita Choudhury' amritachoudhury8@gmail.com; 'Adam Gosling' adamgosling@gmail.com; 'Daniel Cornish' danielcornish1988@gmail.com; wg-pdr@apnic.net Cc: 'Sunny Chendi' sunny@apnic.net Subject: Re: [wg-pdr] Re: 5.6. General requirements for requests

Hi Amrita,

The advantage of googledocs is that you can use:

* Googledocs * Word * OpenOffice * Many other compatible and *free* open-source tools

So not able to use Google is not a problem for anyone.

Also you can work *off-line* and then dump the changes or comments into the Googledocs or other platform.

There is no sense to have limitations on a specific platform if what we want to achieve is offering the *best* tools to the volunteers working on this.

It is retrograde to not be able to use a tool that is freely availble to *all* in many formats and it is better than the APNIC one being a public document.

Just look at my word document and how easy is to compare old text with as many proposed changes as you want, and thus *facilitate* the work for all of us.

If this is the way to go, then it is just better than each us that it is interested in resolving the issues submits a policy proposal and we don’t need to waste our time with outdated tools that make our work much more complex and dificult.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 4/6/21 8:36, "Amrita Choudhury" <amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in mailto:amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in > escribió:

Dear Jordi,

Your objection is noted.

However as you may be aware that there are places in APAC who cannot access a Google doc (and this is a discussion of APAC region) this mode was suggested.

Further, the first aspect is to collaborate. If there are tables or pictures that need to be inserted, for the moment links can be shared.

Also, there is only one image and one table in the entire document at this moment (the table is in the Appendix section and image just shows the hierarchy of RIRs and NIRs and Members( which is an established phenomena)).

Regards,

Amrita

From: Jordi Palet Martínez <jordi.palet@theipv6company.com mailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.com > Sent: 04 June 2021 11:58 To: Amrita Choudhury <amritachoudhury8@gmail.com mailto:amritachoudhury8@gmail.com >; 'Adam Gosling' <adamgosling@gmail.com mailto:adamgosling@gmail.com >; 'Daniel Cornish' <danielcornish1988@gmail.com mailto:danielcornish1988@gmail.com >; wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Cc: 'Sunny Chendi' <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net >; 'Amrita Choudhury' <amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in mailto:amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in > Subject: Re: [wg-pdr] Re: 5.6. General requirements for requests

Hi Amrita,

This is no sense.

If this platform doesn’t support images neither tables, why we don’t use a googledocs?

I totally object to a non-usable platform which make our work more complex.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 4/6/21 8:12, "Amrita Choudhury" <amritachoudhury8@gmail.com mailto:amritachoudhury8@gmail.com > escribió:

Dear All,

Based on the request from the community for having a platform to worki efficiently, the Secretariat has exported the policy document to the Comment platform. Here is the direct link: https://comment.apnic.net/?page_id=81

Working group members can comment on the platform. Page breaks have been inserted after each major section to help in focussing on the discussions on individual sections.

However there are some limitations:

1. You cannot insert images in the document. You will have to provide the link in the document to the respective images

2. Tables don't render properly

Hope this helps all to collaborate and share your comments/ views/ inputs more efficiently.

Regards,

Amrita

From: Adam Gosling <adamgosling@gmail.com mailto:adamgosling@gmail.com > Sent: 31 May 2021 09:10 To: Daniel Cornish <danielcornish1988@gmail.com mailto:danielcornish1988@gmail.com > Cc: Sunny Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net >; Amrita Choudhury <amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in mailto:amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in >; wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] 5.6. General requirements for requests

Hello all

To understand Daniel’s contribution here I had to copy the current policy and compare with his proposed text.

His proposal responds to slide 9 of Sunny's report. "Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive”.

Daniel, thanks for your contribution. I think it merges the two previous sections efficiently and accurately and I would support it as a policy proposal or even as a community-driven editorial change proposed in a draft document by the Secretariat.

Anyway.

The conversation moved on a little, but I wanted to ask if there is a way to more efficiently share proposals with mark-up. A dropbox or something, perhaps?

Adam

On 19 Apr 2021, at 1:43 pm, Daniel Cornish <danielcornish1988@gmail.com mailto:danielcornish1988@gmail.com > wrote:

Hi all,

I'll start.

5.6. General requirements for requests

All requests for address space must be supported by the following documentation:

* A statement describing the intended use for the address space

* Details of the organisation’s network infrastructure, such as network diagrams and subnetting plans

* Network equipment invoices and/or approved purchase orders for network equipment

* Any address space currently held by the organisation

* Any historical address space held by the organisation, including previous assignments made from historical address allocations.

In addition to this general requirement, more specific documentation may also be requested, at the IRs discretion. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.

Regards, Dan.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 10:46, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net > wrote:

Hi Amrita,

On 19/04/2021 10:31 am, Amrita Choudhury wrote:

I agree Sunny we should begin discussing the recommendations one by one. Perhaps we begin with the first observation over the lack of

f clarity in definitions was the first observation. Secretariat please confirm. DO you think we could start the discussion from that point?

Yes, slide #8. You may start the discussion from that slide.

Regards Sunny

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi

Congratulations Tomohiro san. Thank you for agreeing to co-chair.

Regards

Adam

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 10:01 am, Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in wrote:

Thanks Sunny.

I wanted to take a step by step approach whereby the first step assigned by the Policy SIG leadership was to select a Co-Chair.

Dear members of the working group, am happy to share that Tomohiro Fujisaki has agreed to be the co-chair.

I agree Sunny we should begin discussing the recommendations one by one. Perhaps we begin with the first observation over the lack of

f clarity in definitions was the first observation. Secretariat please confirm. DO you think we could start the discussion from that point?

Regards

Amrita

*From:* Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net *Sent:* 19 April 2021 05:37 *To:* wg-pdr@apnic.net *Subject:* [wg-pdr] Re: Let's start working !

Hi Jordi and Anupam,

Prop-133 is sent to the APNIC EC for endorsement. As per PDP, Secretariat will update the policy document and open call for editorial comment after EC endorsed the proposal. Implementation of this proposal is just a small update to Section 2.2.3 only.

Dear WG Chairs,

This process will take sometime so in the meantime, request you to start the discussion on the recommendations put forward in the Policy document review report.

Regards Sunny

On 18/04/2021 9:40 pm, Anupam Agrawal wrote:

Yes a baseline has to be fixed. Whatever it is post prop 133 or pre.

Regards

--

---

Anupam Agrawal | India Internet Foundation - Chair | 91 990 399 2838

On 18-Apr-2021, at 2:23 PM, Jordi Palet Martínez via [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group wg-pdr@apnic.net wrote:

Hi Sunny,

I think, to avoid confusions in one of the inputs from your slides, it will be good to have the INRP updated with the implementation of prop-133.

I recall it has passed the last call a few days ago and I'm not sure if you will propose any editorial comment in that text, etc., or otherwise when do you expect the web page of the INRP to be updated with that?

Regards, Jordi @jordipalet

?El 18/4/21 3:57, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:

Hi Amrita and all,

As requested, Policy document review report presentation is attached.

Here is the URL for APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies document https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fcommunity%2Fpolicy%2Fresources&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca1a72a2718b34c6b38ab08d9025ec43b%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637543428340758198%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=UTCbEFkLvAXEr2s7cL7uXMHXFZAdvzogDsEJj%2FNAi8c%3D&reserved=0

Please let me know if you need any other documents and/or details.

Regards Sunny

On 16/04/2021 6:02 pm, Amrita Choudhury wrote:

Thank you Betrand and Ching-Heng,

Yes will reach out to some community member(s) from the region for the co-chair position and will update in sometime.

Thanks Jordi for sharing your document.

However I would suggest that we take a step back and first review the presentation and document shared by the secretariat so that everyone is in the same page and then move forward.

May I please request the APNIC secretariat to share the presentation in the mailing group please.

Regards,

Amrita

-----Original Message----- From: chku chku@twnic.tw Sent: 16 April 2021 09:10 To: wg-pdr wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] Fw: Re: Let's start working !

Dear WG colleagues,

Thank you again for your willingness to participate in the PDR working group. We also thank Amrita Choudhury for expressing her willingness to serve as the Chair of this WG and to lead the discussions.

Policy SIG Chairs will now kindly request the WG Chair to appoint a Co-Chair and to kick-start the related WG meetings and discussions ASAP.

Have a nice day and health.

Best regards, Bertrand and Ching-Heng Policy SIG Chairs

-----Original message----- From:Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@micrologic.nc To:wg-pdr@apnic.net Date:Wed, 14 Apr 2021 06:25:48 Subject:[wg-pdr] Let's start working !

Hello everybody !

Amrita Choudhury will be Chairing this Policy Document Review Working Group

I wish you all the best !

Have a great day,

-- Bertrand Cherrier ____________________ Micro Logic Systems

https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mls.nc... https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mls.nc%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca1a72a2718b34c6b38ab08d9025ec43b%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637543428340758198%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=n35MTfraQEaV7KoSiKALM1%2Bm0c6Wm5UIRsJDZhVnpKQ%3D&reserved=0 Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

--

---

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD https://www.google.com/maps/search/6+Cordelia+Street,+South+Brisbane,+QLD?entry=gmail&source=g | http://www.apnic.net https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca1a72a2718b34c6b38ab08d9025ec43b%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637543428340768191%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=FjePIcvZ6445LZ8MQnPQd2jo7HueU%2BzgP%2BDGs60kEPA%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________________________________

---

[wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

---

IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca1a72a2718b34c6b38ab08d9025ec43b%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637543428340768191%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=lo7ffu9bCiv0yuSGXAmwL8fgmntNPOqZZ55ksR3zG%2B8%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

---

[wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

---

[wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net

To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

--

---

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi

Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100

PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199

6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD https://www.google.com/maps/search/6+Cordelia+Street,+South+Brisbane,+QLD?entry=gmail&source=g | http://www.apnic.net

---

---

[wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

Hi Everyone,

Hope all of you are well and safe.

We presume all of you must have had a chance to go through the presentation report that Sunny had shared over a month back (have attached it for easy reference).

From the slide deck, 1. If we take the Operational concern - 1 slide that list that: "There is no clarity in the definitions and elsewhere in the document about whether claimed Historical resources should be treated as “Current” resources or not........." .

2. Also The first slide on observation too mentions examples of different definitions used for IPv4 and IPv6 policies.

Could we now discuss (1) Whether there is a need to for the definitions to be looked at or revised? (2) Could you point out the points need to be revise?

Regards,

Amrita

-----Original Message----- From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net Sent: 18 April 2021 07:27 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] Re: Fw: Re: Let's start working !

Hi Amrita and all,

As requested, Policy document review report presentation is attached.

Here is the URL for APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies document https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources

Please let me know if you need any other documents and/or details.

Regards Sunny

On 16/04/2021 6:02 pm, Amrita Choudhury wrote:

Thank you Betrand and Ching-Heng,

Yes will reach out to some community member(s) from the region for the co-chair position and will update in sometime.

Thanks Jordi for sharing your document.

However I would suggest that we take a step back and first review the presentation and document shared by the secretariat so that everyone is in the same page and then move forward.

May I please request the APNIC secretariat to share the presentation in the mailing group please.

Regards,

Amrita

-----Original Message----- From: chku chku@twnic.tw Sent: 16 April 2021 09:10 To: wg-pdr wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] Fw: Re: Let's start working !

Dear WG colleagues,

Thank you again for your willingness to participate in the PDR working group. We also thank Amrita Choudhury for expressing her willingness to serve as the Chair of this WG and to lead the discussions.

Policy SIG Chairs will now kindly request the WG Chair to appoint a Co-Chair and to kick-start the related WG meetings and discussions ASAP.

Have a nice day and health.

Best regards, Bertrand and Ching-Heng Policy SIG Chairs

-----Original message----- From:Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@micrologic.nc To:wg-pdr@apnic.net Date:Wed, 14 Apr 2021 06:25:48 Subject:[wg-pdr] Let's start working !

Hello everybody !

Amrita Choudhury will be Chairing this Policy Document Review Working Group

I wish you all the best !

Have a great day,

-- Bertrand Cherrier ____________________ Micro Logic Systems https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. mls.nc%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C03dc0a933f2d4b64f72808d900ae0c65%7C127 d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637541570440443255%7CUnknown%7 CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV CI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=CT7HiwJuFsEw9UtWn9j7FTv3pXY0aKhyOIfjRJTEC6Y %3D&amp;reserved=0 Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

Dear Anupam,

From what I understand, Policies are the rules approved by community (based on consensus) which are implemented by APNIC and becomes part of the rules for Internet Resource Management in the Asia Pacific region.

Policies are “the rules that control the way IP addresses and Autonomous System Numbers are distributed and registered in the Asia Pacific” (Ref: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/process/APNIC)

Regarding Guidelines, from what I have understood, guidelines are documents developed within the APNIC community and are consistent with the goals and policies applicable, they are intended to assist, however guidelines cannot be considered to replace or modify any of the specific policies defined in other APNIC documents.

Hope this clarifies your query. Others please feel to add or clarify.

Regards,

Amrita

From: Anupam Agrawal anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com Sent: 24 May 2021 14:58 To: Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in Cc: wg-pdr@apnic.net; ???? fujisaki@syce.net Subject: Re: [wg-pdr] Let's start working !

Dear Amrita,

In the context of APNIC, what’s the difference between guideline/s and policy?

Regards

--

________________________________________________________ Anupam Agrawal | India Internet Foundation - Chair | 91 990 399 2838

On 24-May-2021, at 6:16 AM, Amrita Choudhury <amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in mailto:amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in > wrote:

Hi Everyone,

Hope all of you are well and safe.

We presume all of you must have had a chance to go through the presentation report that Sunny had shared over a month back (have attached it for easy reference).

From the slide deck, 1. If we take the Operational concern - 1 slide that list that: "There is no clarity in the definitions and elsewhere in the document about whether claimed Historical resources should be treated as “Current” resources or not........." .

2. Also The first slide on observation too mentions examples of different definitions used for IPv4 and IPv6 policies.

Could we now discuss (1) Whether there is a need to for the definitions to be looked at or revised? (2) Could you point out the points need to be revise?

Regards,

Amrita

-----Original Message----- From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net > Sent: 18 April 2021 07:27 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] Re: Fw: Re: Let's start working !

Hi Amrita and all,

As requested, Policy document review report presentation is attached.

Here is the URL for APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies document https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources

Please let me know if you need any other documents and/or details.

Regards Sunny

On 16/04/2021 6:02 pm, Amrita Choudhury wrote:

Thank you Betrand and Ching-Heng,

Yes will reach out to some community member(s) from the region for the co-chair position and will update in sometime.

Thanks Jordi for sharing your document.

However I would suggest that we take a step back and first review the presentation and document shared by the secretariat so that everyone is in the same page and then move forward.

May I please request the APNIC secretariat to share the presentation in the mailing group please.

Regards,

Amrita

-----Original Message----- From: chku <chku@twnic.tw mailto:chku@twnic.tw > Sent: 16 April 2021 09:10 To: wg-pdr <wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net > Subject: [wg-pdr] Fw: Re: Let's start working !

Dear WG colleagues,

Thank you again for your willingness to participate in the PDR working group. We also thank Amrita Choudhury for expressing her willingness to serve as the Chair of this WG and to lead the discussions.

Policy SIG Chairs will now kindly request the WG Chair to appoint a Co-Chair and to kick-start the related WG meetings and discussions ASAP.

Have a nice day and health.

Best regards, Bertrand and Ching-Heng Policy SIG Chairs

-----Original message----- From:Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc > To:wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Date:Wed, 14 Apr 2021 06:25:48 Subject:[wg-pdr] Let's start working !

Hello everybody !

Amrita Choudhury will be Chairing this Policy Document Review Working Group

I wish you all the best !

Have a great day,

-- Bertrand Cherrier ____________________ Micro Logic Systems https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. mls.nc%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C03dc0a933f2d4b64f72808d900ae0c65%7C127 d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637541570440443255%7CUnknown%7 CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV CI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=CT7HiwJuFsEw9UtWn9j7FTv3pXY0aKhyOIfjRJTEC6Y %3D&amp;reserved=0 Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

Hi Anupam

Thanks for your work.

I think you have made a good point about the references to IANA/PTI and I think we should move quickly to propose an update to reflect the change in arrangements. The statements and definitions early in the document hold a lot of weight regarding who is to be governed by these policies and they need to be accurate.

Global Policies that govern the operations at the IANA level require APNIC consensus via the PDP. It is important in this document to make clear where the APNIC (regional) policies sits in the distribution hierarchy.

Regards,

Adam

On 31 May 2021, at 5:34 am, Anupam Agrawal anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com wrote:

Dear All,

On definitions, It appears that there are quite a lot of explanatory statements hanging around some of the definitions. It is suggested that if those can be marked as Note to clearly identify that its an additional text in the context of definition.

Section 2.1 – Internet Registry (IR) – The sentence “ Internet Registries include :APNIC and other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), National Internet Registries (NIRs) & Local Internet Registries (LIRs).” This is additional text for the purpose of explaining the definition and as such can be marked as Note distinctively. Section 2.1.1 – Regional Internet Registry (RIR) – the last sentence of the definition – “There are five RIRs: AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and the RIPE NCC..” can be removed from the definition or segregated as a Note. Section 2.1.2 – National Internet Registry (NIR) – the last sentence of the definition – “NIRs are expected to apply their policies and procedures fairly and equitably to all Members of their constituency.” can be removed from the definition or segregated as a Note. Further,

Section 2.1.1 – Regional Internet Registry (RIR) – There is a reference to IANA. However, IANA is just a function being performed through ICANN. If one looks on the IANA website, the mission statement is of that of PTI. Possibly this needs to be amended as IANA (PTI) or PTI or ICANN. As the formal agreement resides between RIR and ICANN, Section 1.2 be changed to reflect the same. Section 2.1.2 – National Internet Registry (NIR) – the definition includes the statement “which are generally LIRs organized at a national level”. However, if one looks at the document “Criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region”, there in Section 3.1 states that “An organization wishing to be recognized as an NIR must have formal endorsement at the national level by the appropriate Government body”. This being a binding condition which necessarily does mean that the regional community itself is not empowered on its own but needs a formal government endorsement, the same needs to be included in the definition. Figure 1: Diagram of distribution hierarchy The figure 1 in the policy does not factor the condition wherein APNIC makes direct allocation to ISP. The figure 1 in the policy does not factor the condition wherein APNIC/NIR/LIR makes direct allocation to IXP. The figure 1 has EU nomenclature which has been mentioned in the legend as End Users. The definition of End User be included in the Definitions (Section 2.0).

Regards Anupam Agrawal

From: Amrita Choudhury mailto:amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 4:56 PM To: Anupam Agrawal mailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com Cc: wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net; ???? mailto:fujisaki@syce.net Subject: RE: [wg-pdr] Let's start working !

Dear Anupam,

From what I understand, Policies are the rules approved by community (based on consensus) which are implemented by APNIC and becomes part of the rules for Internet Resource Management in the Asia Pacific region.

Policies are “the rules that control the way IP addresses and Autonomous System Numbers are distributed and registered in the Asia Pacific” (Ref: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/process/APNIC https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/process/APNIC)

Regarding Guidelines, from what I have understood, guidelines are documents developed within the APNIC community and are consistent with the goals and policies applicable, they are intended to assist, however guidelines cannot be considered to replace or modify any of the specific policies defined in other APNIC documents.

Hope this clarifies your query. Others please feel to add or clarify.

Regards,

Amrita

From: Anupam Agrawal anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com Sent: 24 May 2021 14:58 To: Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in Cc: wg-pdr@apnic.net; ???? fujisaki@syce.net Subject: Re: [wg-pdr] Let's start working !

Dear Amrita,

In the context of APNIC, what’s the difference between guideline/s and policy?

Regards

-- ________________________________________________________ Anupam Agrawal | India Internet Foundation - Chair | 91 990 399 2838

On 24-May-2021, at 6:16 AM, Amrita Choudhury <amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in mailto:amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

Hope all of you are well and safe.

We presume all of you must have had a chance to go through the presentation report that Sunny had shared over a month back (have attached it for easy reference).

From the slide deck,

1. If we take the Operational concern - 1 slide that list that: "There is no clarity in the definitions and elsewhere in the document about whether claimed Historical resources should be treated as “Current” resources or not........." .

2. Also The first slide on observation too mentions examples of different definitions used for IPv4 and IPv6 policies.

Could we now discuss (1) Whether there is a need to for the definitions to be looked at or revised? (2) Could you point out the points need to be revise?

Regards,

Amrita

-----Original Message----- From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net> Sent: 18 April 2021 07:27 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] Re: Fw: Re: Let's start working !

Hi Amrita and all,

As requested, Policy document review report presentation is attached.

Here is the URL for APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies document https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources

Please let me know if you need any other documents and/or details.

Regards Sunny

On 16/04/2021 6:02 pm, Amrita Choudhury wrote:

Thank you Betrand and Ching-Heng,

Yes will reach out to some community member(s) from the region for the co-chair position and will update in sometime.

Thanks Jordi for sharing your document.

However I would suggest that we take a step back and first review the presentation and document shared by the secretariat so that everyone is in the same page and then move forward.

May I please request the APNIC secretariat to share the presentation in the mailing group please.

Regards,

Amrita

-----Original Message----- From: chku <chku@twnic.tw mailto:chku@twnic.tw> Sent: 16 April 2021 09:10 To: wg-pdr <wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net> Subject: [wg-pdr] Fw: Re: Let's start working !

Dear WG colleagues,

Thank you again for your willingness to participate in the PDR working group. We also thank Amrita Choudhury for expressing her willingness to serve as the Chair of this WG and to lead the discussions.

Policy SIG Chairs will now kindly request the WG Chair to appoint a Co-Chair and to kick-start the related WG meetings and discussions ASAP.

Have a nice day and health.

Best regards, Bertrand and Ching-Heng Policy SIG Chairs

-----Original message----- From:Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> To:wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Date:Wed, 14 Apr 2021 06:25:48 Subject:[wg-pdr] Let's start working !

Hello everybody !

Amrita Choudhury will be Chairing this Policy Document Review Working Group

I wish you all the best !

Have a great day,

-- Bertrand Cherrier ____________________ Micro Logic Systems https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. mls.nc%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C03dc0a933f2d4b64f72808d900ae0c65%7C127 d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637541570440443255%7CUnknown%7 CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV CI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=CT7HiwJuFsEw9UtWn9j7FTv3pXY0aKhyOIfjRJTEC6Y %3D&amp;reserved=0 Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) _______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

--

---

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________________________

<policy-document-review-report-apnic51-final.pdf><Untitled attachment 00128.txt>_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

---

[wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

Hi all

My comments are at the bottom.

On 24 May 2021, at 12:51 pm, Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury8@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Everyone,

Hope all of you are well and safe.

We presume all of you must have had a chance to go through the presentation report that Sunny had shared over a month back (have attached it for easy reference).

From the slide deck,

1. If we take the Operational concern - 1 slide that list that: "There is no clarity in the definitions and elsewhere in the document about whether claimed Historical resources should be treated as “Current” resources or not........." .

I think the policy already says that transferred (claimed) Historical Resources are considered Current.

The definition of Current resources is stated as: 2.5.1. Current resources

Current resources are Internet resources registered by APNIC under explicit policies and agreements.

—

Please note that the text says “registered” (not allocated, assigned, or delegated). My interpretations is that if the resources are registered in the APNIC Whois Database and there is an agreement between ‘a custodian' and the APNIC organisation (that is they are claimed and registered by an APNIC account holder), then the resources are Current.

From what Sunny presented it seems there might be some contradictory texts elsewhere in the document. However, I think that since this is a Definitional statement it would likely over rule other texts unless they are very specific.

I would be happy to co-author a policy proposal confirming this interpretation.

Adam

Dear Adam,

Following are my comments.

1. Any term for which there is a possibility of having the term interpreted by different readers of the document differently, the same should be included in the definitions and that’s a basic rule generally followed for building the definitions list. On this ground, End User needs a possible inclusion. Further, End User (EU) is also there in Figure 1 of the document.

Also, if the document wishes to assign any specific meaning of a term to be considered by the reader, the same can be included in the definitions. From this standpoint, account holder is something which can be considered for inclusion in the terms section. As account holder means a specific meaning in the context of APNIC policy document.

2. A look at he ARIN policy document at https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-6-end-user was helpful here. It defines - "An end-user is an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks.” Either this or something like this can possibly be taken. Possibly organization also needs to be defined by including the meaning within brackets.

3. In 2.12, I could not understand the reason for including “or ASNs” within brackets.

4. In 2.1.12 The term transfer fo registration is having a better clarity definitely provided registration means inclusion in APNIC Whois DB. Another candidate for definition.

-- Regards Anupam Agrawal

On 31-May-2021, at 9:51 AM, Adam Gosling adamgosling@gmail.com wrote:

Hi all

This email has Amrita’s question followed by my comments on Sunny’s examples.

...

On 24 May 2021, at 12:51 pm, Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury8@gmail.com wrote:

2. Also The first slide on observation too mentions examples of different definitions used for IPv4 and IPv6 policies.

Could we now discuss (1) Whether there is a need to for the definitions to be looked at or revised? (2) Could you point out the points need to be revise?

• Slide 8

1. IPv4 refers to ‘End User’ and IPv6 refers to ‘End-site’. There is only a definition for End-site in the document.

I recall seeing advice from Jordi that the differentiation between these terms is still valid. I am not sure if they make an operational impact on policy decision making by the Secretariat.

Perhaps we can discuss that or ask for advice from Sunny. If the two terms are still required I think we should draft a set of two definitions.

2. No clear set of rules to determine which terms require a definition.

– For example, there is a definition for aut-num object, but not for any other whois object.

The inclusion of the ‘autnum' definition is an artefact of the policy merger back in 2015. I propose it be deleted. I don’t feel strongly that a reference to the whois guidelines are required in this instance.

• Slide 10

3. Usage rate applies to IPv4 only, but it doesn’t say it. Utilization is for IPv6. This could be made clearer by indicating that Usage rate applies only to IPv4, or just use utilization for both IPv4 and IPv6.

Usage rate is still relevant to IPv4 in the assessment for the transfers market and could be used as a protection against hoarding or monopolisation of addresses.

The Utilisation rate is still relevant to IPv6 delegations as it describes the impact of the HD-ratio.

I propose we keep both but attempt to draft new text to make them more accessible.

4. In the Transfers definition (2.12), the use of the word “re-allocation” is potentially misleading as a transfer is not necessarily an allocation/assignment. It is also not a resource taken from the free pool which is the action most commonly associated with the word allocation.

– Re-delegated would be a better word, or transfer of registration might be more accurate.

My interpretation would be that a “delegation" involves taking resources from the "free pool". My understanding is that transferred resources are never returned to the pool, or quarantined in any way.

For this reason the best terms as proposed by Sunny would be "transfer of registration”.

The definition also includes the transfer of Historical Resources and I guess the same would apply. They are not returned to the free pool, so it should be thought of as a change in the "registration" details in the APNIC Whois DB.

Regards,

Adam

---

[wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

This was my proposal in end-site:

2.9. End-site An End-Site is defined as the location of an End-User who has a business or legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service provider that involves: that service provider assigning address space to the End-User location that service provider providing transit service for the End-User location to other sites that service provider carrying the End-User's location traffic that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the End-User's location assignment

I suggested that in RIPE, via a policy proposal (together with other changes), and it was accepted about a year ago.

I’m again attaching the docx. And it is also availble as google docs at:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17rJXvKB2MBF5RwW9hfpeWheoZ6fbBmrtaJ-frF3f...

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 4/6/21 2:22, "Adam Gosling" adamgosling@gmail.com escribió:

Hello Anupam

I think we are broadly in agreement. Although I wasn’t able to find Jordi’s dissertation on End Site, there is an easy solution to adapt the ARIN definition to our needs and more on.

There are many issues raised by the Secretariat and I think definitions is among the least important. So we should not waste too much time on them.

I think deprecating the Second Opinion Request process is more important. As the policy is no longer followed, it means Members and the Secretariat itself could be in breach of policy. The Secretariat could argue that since this is only in IPv4 policy, they can apply an Assignment Window large enough to cover any Account Holder’s resources. Is this sensible even if they transferred in a whole /8?

Either way, if it is an obsolete policy, it needs to be deprecated. It is a simple proposal. I could write it, but would prefer not to be the principle ‘author' of such a proposal to avoid any perception I might have a conflict of interest.

Adam

On 1 Jun 2021, at 6:34 pm, Anupam Agrawal anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com wrote:

Dear Adam,

Following are my comments.

1. Any term for which there is a possibility of having the term interpreted by different readers of the document differently, the same should be included in the definitions and that’s a basic rule generally followed for building the definitions list. On this ground, End User needs a possible inclusion. Further, End User (EU) is also there in Figure 1 of the document.

Also, if the document wishes to assign any specific meaning of a term to be considered by the reader, the same can be included in the definitions. From this standpoint, account holder is something which can be considered for inclusion in the terms section. As account holder means a specific meaning in the context of APNIC policy document.

2. A look at he ARIN policy document at https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-6-end-user was helpful here. It defines - "An end-user is an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks.” Either this or something like this can possibly be taken. Possibly organization also needs to be defined by including the meaning within brackets.

3. In 2.12, I could not understand the reason for including “or ASNs” within brackets.

4. In 2.1.12 The term transfer fo registration is having a better clarity definitely provided registration means inclusion in APNIC Whois DB. Another candidate for definition.

--

Regards

Anupam Agrawal

On 31-May-2021, at 9:51 AM, Adam Gosling adamgosling@gmail.com wrote:

Hi all

This email has Amrita’s question followed by my comments on Sunny’s examples.

On 24 May 2021, at 12:51 pm, Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury8@gmail.com wrote:

2. Also The first slide on observation too mentions examples of different definitions used for IPv4 and IPv6 policies.

Could we now discuss (1) Whether there is a need to for the definitions to be looked at or revised?                                (2) Could you point out the points need to be revise?

* Slide 8

1. IPv4 refers to ‘End User’ and IPv6 refers to ‘End-site’. There is only a definition for End-site in the document.

I recall seeing advice from Jordi that the differentiation between these terms is still valid. I am not sure if they make an operational impact on policy decision making by the Secretariat.

Perhaps we can discuss that or ask for advice from Sunny. If the two terms are still required I think we should draft a set of two definitions.

2. No clear set of rules to determine which terms require a definition. – For example, there is a definition for aut-num object, but not for any other whois object.

The inclusion of the ‘autnum' definition is an artefact of the policy merger back in 2015. I propose it be deleted. I don’t feel strongly that a reference to the whois guidelines are required in this instance.

* Slide 10

3. Usage rate applies to IPv4 only, but it doesn’t say it. Utilization is for IPv6. This could be made clearer by indicating that Usage rate applies only to IPv4, or just use utilization for both IPv4 and IPv6.

Usage rate is still relevant to IPv4 in the assessment for the transfers market and could be used as a protection against hoarding or monopolisation of addresses.

The Utilisation rate is still relevant to IPv6 delegations as it describes the impact of the HD-ratio.

I propose we keep both but attempt to draft new text to make them more accessible.

4. In the Transfers definition (2.12), the use of the word “re-allocation” is potentially misleading as a transfer is not necessarily an allocation/assignment. It is also not a resource taken from the free pool which is the action most commonly associated with the word allocation. – Re-delegated would be a better word, or transfer of registration might be more accurate.

My interpretation would be that a “delegation" involves taking resources from the "free pool". My understanding is that transferred resources are never returned to the pool, or quarantined in any way.

For this reason the best terms as proposed by Sunny would be "transfer of registration”.

The definition also includes the transfer of Historical Resources and I guess the same would apply. They are not returned to the free pool, so it should be thought of as a change in the "registration" details in the APNIC Whois DB.

Regards,

Adam

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi Jordi

Please see my comments inline [Adam]

On 5 Jun 2021, at 6:07 pm, Jordi Palet Martínez via [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group wg-pdr@apnic.net wrote:

Hi Adam,

I’m attaching the document in PDF, in case that makes it easier. Also here in plain text:

[Adam] I have seen your PDF. I felt some of it was outside the scope of this working group. It deals with issues you have identified rather than only those raised in Sunny’s report. The terms of reference for this group was along the lines of "discuss the recommendations put forward in the Policy Document Review Report and consider any possible proposals for community discussion at APNIC 52 Open Policy Meeting (OPM)”.

While I might support your proposal to standardise on the term ‘INRs', I will not support it in the context of this working group. It is a our responsibility to address the ‘Observations’ and ‘Operational concerns’ in the report and to provide proposals to resolve those identified issues.

2.9. End-site An End-Site is defined as the location of an End-User who has a business or legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service provider that involves: that service provider assigning address space to the End-User location that service provider providing transit service for the End-User location to other sites that service provider carrying the End-User's location traffic that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the End-User's location assignment

Explanation: An organization may be a holding of other organizations, and be their “ISP” so it is necessary to include the “legal” relationship. A single “end-user” may have multiple locations, and each location is an End-Site. This is especially relevant for IPv6, where each location will receive, for example, a /48. End-user defined now

2.10. End-User Service subscriber or customer from an LIR.

Explanation: Useful definition, which may not be clear for new members. Following text will need to be renumbered accordingly.

[Adam] I already indicated that I defer to your expertise on this matter and have a drafted proposal if you are interested in co-authoring.

See also my previous email about, instead of using “new” definitions, if they are “short”, we can just use abbreviations and the first time the full text in ().

[Adam] This approach may work. It may depend on the complexity of the term in question.

I disagree with you that definitions are among the least important. I feel that our goal is precisely an overall review of the inconsistencies, and that means even correcting typos (that was even in the Sunny slides).

[Adam] The goal is not an 'overview of the inconsistencies'. The goal is set by the terms of reference and this group was established to resolve the issues raised in the report.

[Adam] Sunny does not need a policy proposal to correct typos. This has been explained to you already. "The APNIC Secretariat will start a document review to: Correct errors in, or improve the wording, formatting, or presentation of an existing document.” https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-devel...

[Adam] I can’t agree with your assertion that including a definition of End User is more important than deciding if legacy resources are considered current once transferred to an APNIC account. Or to remove the situation where the Secretariat could be accused of not following a policy that should have been made obsolete. If you disagree then we should perhaps agree to disagree, because I know I am right.

About end-site, ARIN definition is incomplete, because doesn’t consider the end-users that have “multiple locations”, which becomes more important in IPv6 (you should not get a single /48, but a /48 for each “site”). I’m actually considering sending a proposal to ARIN to resolve that, together with the other RIRs, following my proposal implemented already in RIPE. Just don’t want to send a proposal for a single paragraph, even it is very important, so I will probably take advantage of correcting some other parts of the policy manual.

For section 2.12, with becomes renumbered as 2.13 if we include the End-User definition, I’ve proposed:

2.13. Transfers Resource transfers are the re-delegation of INRs, either within the APNIC region (Intra-RIR transfers) or with other regions (Inter-RIR transfers).

Explanation: Rewording to make the text shorter, more comprehensive and match the “Counterpart RIR”.

[Adam] I am leaning toward "change the registration and licensing details” or something similar as re-delegation still implies the resources are taken from the free pool.

Regards, Jordi

@jordipalet

El 4/6/21 2:22, "Adam Gosling" <adamgosling@gmail.com mailto:adamgosling@gmail.com> escribió:

Hello Anupam

I think we are broadly in agreement. Although I wasn’t able to find Jordi’s dissertation on End Site, there is an easy solution to adapt the ARIN definition to our needs and more on.

There are many issues raised by the Secretariat and I think definitions is among the least important. So we should not waste too much time on them.

I think deprecating the Second Opinion Request process is more important. As the policy is no longer followed, it means Members and the Secretariat itself could be in breach of policy. The Secretariat could argue that since this is only in IPv4 policy, they can apply an Assignment Window large enough to cover any Account Holder’s resources. Is this sensible even if they transferred in a whole /8?

Either way, if it is an obsolete policy, it needs to be deprecated. It is a simple proposal. I could write it, but would prefer not to be the principle ‘author' of such a proposal to avoid any perception I might have a conflict of interest.

Adam

...

On 1 Jun 2021, at 6:34 pm, Anupam Agrawal <anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com mailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Adam,

Following are my comments.

1. Any term for which there is a possibility of having the term interpreted by different readers of the document differently, the same should be included in the definitions and that’s a basic rule generally followed for building the definitions list. On this ground, End User needs a possible inclusion. Further, End User (EU) is also there in Figure 1 of the document.

Also, if the document wishes to assign any specific meaning of a term to be considered by the reader, the same can be included in the definitions. From this standpoint, account holder is something which can be considered for inclusion in the terms section. As account holder means a specific meaning in the context of APNIC policy document.

2. A look at he ARIN policy document at https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-6-end-user https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-6-end-user was helpful here. It defines - "An end-user is an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks.” Either this or something like this can possibly be taken. Possibly organization also needs to be defined by including the meaning within brackets.

3. In 2.12, I could not understand the reason for including “or ASNs” within brackets.

4. In 2.1.12 The term transfer fo registration is having a better clarity definitely provided registration means inclusion in APNIC Whois DB. Another candidate for definition.

-- Regards Anupam Agrawal

...

On 31-May-2021, at 9:51 AM, Adam Gosling <adamgosling@gmail.com mailto:adamgosling@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all

This email has Amrita’s question followed by my comments on Sunny’s examples.

...

On 24 May 2021, at 12:51 pm, Amrita Choudhury <amritachoudhury8@gmail.com mailto:amritachoudhury8@gmail.com> wrote:

2. Also The first slide on observation too mentions examples of different definitions used for IPv4 and IPv6 policies.

Could we now discuss (1) Whether there is a need to for the definitions to be looked at or revised? (2) Could you point out the points need to be revise?

• Slide 8

1. IPv4 refers to ‘End User’ and IPv6 refers to ‘End-site’. There is only a definition for End-site in the document.

I recall seeing advice from Jordi that the differentiation between these terms is still valid. I am not sure if they make an operational impact on policy decision making by the Secretariat.

Perhaps we can discuss that or ask for advice from Sunny. If the two terms are still required I think we should draft a set of two definitions.

2. No clear set of rules to determine which terms require a definition.

– For example, there is a definition for aut-num object, but not for any other whois object.

The inclusion of the ‘autnum' definition is an artefact of the policy merger back in 2015. I propose it be deleted. I don’t feel strongly that a reference to the whois guidelines are required in this instance.

• Slide 10

3. Usage rate applies to IPv4 only, but it doesn’t say it. Utilization is for IPv6. This could be made clearer by indicating that Usage rate applies only to IPv4, or just use utilization for both IPv4 and IPv6.

Usage rate is still relevant to IPv4 in the assessment for the transfers market and could be used as a protection against hoarding or monopolisation of addresses.

The Utilisation rate is still relevant to IPv6 delegations as it describes the impact of the HD-ratio.

I propose we keep both but attempt to draft new text to make them more accessible.

4. In the Transfers definition (2.12), the use of the word “re-allocation” is potentially misleading as a transfer is not necessarily an allocation/assignment. It is also not a resource taken from the free pool which is the action most commonly associated with the word allocation.

– Re-delegated would be a better word, or transfer of registration might be more accurate.

My interpretation would be that a “delegation" involves taking resources from the "free pool". My understanding is that transferred resources are never returned to the pool, or quarantined in any way.

For this reason the best terms as proposed by Sunny would be "transfer of registration”.

The definition also includes the transfer of Historical Resources and I guess the same would apply. They are not returned to the free pool, so it should be thought of as a change in the "registration" details in the APNIC Whois DB.

Regards,

Adam

---

[wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

---

IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com http://www.theipv6company.com/ The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

<APNIC-review-of-policy-manual-proposal-v0.4.pdf>_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

Hi Anupam

My comments inline, tagged [Adam]

On 5 Jun 2021, at 8:33 pm, Anupam Agrawal anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com wrote:

Dear Adam,

1. Definitions seem unimportant but they provide clarity. It reduces ambiguity. It is strongly suggested to fix definitions while also agreeing with you that the other sections listed needs to be worked simultaneously. But leaving the definitions out will be self defeating.

[Adam] Yes I do feel the 'Operational Concerns' put forward by Sunny are more important than including a definition of 'End User’. The goal of this working group is to resolve the issues raised by the Secretariat. That is all the issues in the presentation. Including the definitions identified there. However, definitions that do not fall into the terms of reference (i.e. address the Review Report findings), should be dealt with later, or outside the context of this working group. This is my opinion.

2. Definitions are more static in nature whereas the dependent policy continues to change. This scenario has been beautifully managed by APNIC in another case where a separate definition document exists which gets applied to n number of documents. https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/corporate/de... https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/corporate/definitions/

This definition document can be extended to include the definitions from this number resource policies document. Anyways, there is a bearing of the definitions document on the number resource policies document. In cases, where certain terms need to have specific meaning in the context of number resource policies, they remain in the number resource policies document.

[Adam] If others support the idea of migrating the definitions into another (or their own) document. We should discuss that.

3. A policy process can become redundant with time or loose its relevance. As secretariat says that there is nothing which happens in the context of second opinion requests, can be deprecated.

[Adam] Would you be willing to co-author a policy proposal addressing this?

4. For every change which is agreed is there going to be a separate proposal or the working group submits one proposal?

[Adam] It is my experience that bite-sized policy changes are more productively discussed than complicated, multi-part proposals which invariably get broken down into component parts by the SIG Chairs. I would be willing to support a single proposal to deal with all the definitions, but not a proposal that says ‘replace 80%” of the policy document with this new text. It is just too hard for people to dedicate enough time to sift through all the changes. Or they will break consensus if they disagree with one small part. A proposal to include a definition for 'End User' would be likely to succeed with minimal discussion in the SIG. There seems little room for Objection.

Regards

-- ________________________________________________________ Anupam Agrawal | India Internet Foundation - Chair | 91 990 399 2838

...

On 04-Jun-2021, at 5:52 AM, Adam Gosling <adamgosling@gmail.com mailto:adamgosling@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Anupam

I think we are broadly in agreement. Although I wasn’t able to find Jordi’s dissertation on End Site, there is an easy solution to adapt the ARIN definition to our needs and more on.

There are many issues raised by the Secretariat and I think definitions is among the least important. So we should not waste too much time on them.

I think deprecating the Second Opinion Request process is more important. As the policy is no longer followed, it means Members and the Secretariat itself could be in breach of policy. The Secretariat could argue that since this is only in IPv4 policy, they can apply an Assignment Window large enough to cover any Account Holder’s resources. Is this sensible even if they transferred in a whole /8?

Either way, if it is an obsolete policy, it needs to be deprecated. It is a simple proposal. I could write it, but would prefer not to be the principle ‘author' of such a proposal to avoid any perception I might have a conflict of interest.

Adam

...

On 1 Jun 2021, at 6:34 pm, Anupam Agrawal <anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com mailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Adam,

Following are my comments.

1. Any term for which there is a possibility of having the term interpreted by different readers of the document differently, the same should be included in the definitions and that’s a basic rule generally followed for building the definitions list. On this ground, End User needs a possible inclusion. Further, End User (EU) is also there in Figure 1 of the document.

Also, if the document wishes to assign any specific meaning of a term to be considered by the reader, the same can be included in the definitions. From this standpoint, account holder is something which can be considered for inclusion in the terms section. As account holder means a specific meaning in the context of APNIC policy document.

2. A look at he ARIN policy document at https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-6-end-user https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-6-end-user was helpful here. It defines - "An end-user is an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks.” Either this or something like this can possibly be taken. Possibly organization also needs to be defined by including the meaning within brackets.

3. In 2.12, I could not understand the reason for including “or ASNs” within brackets.

4. In 2.1.12 The term transfer fo registration is having a better clarity definitely provided registration means inclusion in APNIC Whois DB. Another candidate for definition.

-- Regards Anupam Agrawal

...

On 31-May-2021, at 9:51 AM, Adam Gosling <adamgosling@gmail.com mailto:adamgosling@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all

This email has Amrita’s question followed by my comments on Sunny’s examples.

...

On 24 May 2021, at 12:51 pm, Amrita Choudhury <amritachoudhury8@gmail.com mailto:amritachoudhury8@gmail.com> wrote:

2. Also The first slide on observation too mentions examples of different definitions used for IPv4 and IPv6 policies.

Could we now discuss (1) Whether there is a need to for the definitions to be looked at or revised? (2) Could you point out the points need to be revise?

• Slide 8

1. IPv4 refers to ‘End User’ and IPv6 refers to ‘End-site’. There is only a definition for End-site in the document.

I recall seeing advice from Jordi that the differentiation between these terms is still valid. I am not sure if they make an operational impact on policy decision making by the Secretariat.

Perhaps we can discuss that or ask for advice from Sunny. If the two terms are still required I think we should draft a set of two definitions.

2. No clear set of rules to determine which terms require a definition.

– For example, there is a definition for aut-num object, but not for any other whois object.

The inclusion of the ‘autnum' definition is an artefact of the policy merger back in 2015. I propose it be deleted. I don’t feel strongly that a reference to the whois guidelines are required in this instance.

• Slide 10

3. Usage rate applies to IPv4 only, but it doesn’t say it. Utilization is for IPv6. This could be made clearer by indicating that Usage rate applies only to IPv4, or just use utilization for both IPv4 and IPv6.

Usage rate is still relevant to IPv4 in the assessment for the transfers market and could be used as a protection against hoarding or monopolisation of addresses.

The Utilisation rate is still relevant to IPv6 delegations as it describes the impact of the HD-ratio.

I propose we keep both but attempt to draft new text to make them more accessible.

4. In the Transfers definition (2.12), the use of the word “re-allocation” is potentially misleading as a transfer is not necessarily an allocation/assignment. It is also not a resource taken from the free pool which is the action most commonly associated with the word allocation.

– Re-delegated would be a better word, or transfer of registration might be more accurate.

My interpretation would be that a “delegation" involves taking resources from the "free pool". My understanding is that transferred resources are never returned to the pool, or quarantined in any way.

For this reason the best terms as proposed by Sunny would be "transfer of registration”.

The definition also includes the transfer of Historical Resources and I guess the same would apply. They are not returned to the free pool, so it should be thought of as a change in the "registration" details in the APNIC Whois DB.

Regards,

Adam

---

[wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net