Orbit

In this case, there 3 very concrete questions, especially the legal aspects. May be in this case, is not just the chairs but the secretariat who should provide some inputs.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 25/8/21 12:43, "Jordi Palet Martínez" jordi.palet@theipv6company.com escribió:

Hi Bertrand, all,

I’m trying to digest this.

1) I believe we have already in other policies flexible timing so it is considered an operational matter for the secretariat to decide. Anyway, this should not be a blocking factor, as we can decide about “n months” and then discuss what the SIG policy prefers.

2) Justification of usage is already defined in the policies. If you can’t justify the usage of resources, you can’t keep them. There is no need to re-define it for this specific case, right? Again, it should not be a blocking factor.

3) Legal issues, like what exactly? How do you know that? Why this is different that when the actual policy was implemented? Is the secretariat having any specific recommendations on this, like a kind of “pre-impact-analysis”?

I don’t think it makes any sense to block a policy proposal based on those inputs, otherwise, we can have *any* policy proposal blocked up front. With all the respect, I think it is an extralimitation of the chairs job and totally subjective.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 13/8/21 3:00, "Bertrand Cherrier" b.cherrier@micrologic.nc escribió:

Hi Sunny, Jordi,

This proposal will go back to the WG with the following remarks :

- It is not clear what might constitute a “reasonable period of time” and this could result in implementation of the policy being subject to legal challenge. A set date or time period may provider greater certainty for both APNIC in implementing the policy and the community in complying with it. - The proposal suggests that if there is no “justification” for the historical resources not being used, they are to be reclaimed. However, it is not clear what might constitute “justification”. The proposer and/or community may wish to consider this.

Aside from the comments above, we note that there may be legal issues with the implementation of this policy. As such, it will require further legal consideration if the policy progresses in its current form.

Regards,

Le 11/08/2021 à 11:45, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi a écrit :

Noted, thanks Bertrand!

Regards, Sunny

On 9/08/2021 7:00 pm, Bertrand Cherrier wrote:

Hello Sunny,

This proposal is postponed, we'll have an answer by friday.

Regards,

Le 06/08/2021 à 11:41, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi a écrit :

Dear Chair,

Please find below a new proposal submitted for OPM at APNIC 52.

According to the SIG Guidelines, Section 2.3.1, the Chair should:

<quote> - Read or review submitted proposals or presentations - Accept or reject proposals or presentations for discussion at the forthcoming SIG forum (and suggest an alternative forum if the topic is not within SIG charter) <unquote>

The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion at the forthcoming OPM if:

- The proposal is out of scope for the SIG charter - The proposal is insufficiently developed to be the basis for a useful discussion - The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority

Please let me know by COB Monday, 09 August 2021, if you accept or reject this proposal?

Thank you, Sunny

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject: [APNIC #4725998] New APNIC Policy Proposal - Recovery of unused historical resources Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 02:21:08 +1000 From: Jordi Palet Martínez via RT policy@apnic.net Reply-To: policy@apnic.net

Ticket URL: https://rt4.apnic.net/Ticket/Display.html?id=4725998

Recovery of unused historical resources -------------------------------------------------------

Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez jordi.palet@theipv6company.com

1. Problem statement ------------------------------------------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.

Considering the exhaustion of IPv4 seems unreasonable that if those resources are not actually used in a sufficiently justified way, they are recovered, so other organizations can take advantage of them for the transition to IPv6.

One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.

2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------------------------------- Ensuring that usage of IPv4 resources is justified or otherwise they are available for other organizations that need them.

3. Situation in other regions ------------------------------------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.

4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------------------------------- Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.

Proposed text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources APNIC will periodically and automatically monitor the Internet Number Resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. In those cases, APNIC will contact networks responsible for those and if there is no justification, recover them, and place in the free pool for re-delegation.

5. Advantages / Disadvantages ------------------------------------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.

Disadvantages: None.

6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------- None.

7. References -------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair