Re: [sig-policy] revised: prop-060
- there is no problem statement in Section 2 which purports to declare
what the problem is.
- Section 4, item 2. "Members" is mentioned without context. NIR
members? APNIC members? Other members, and if so what of?
- Section 4, item 3. I can't see how APNIC or anyone else can dictate to
any sovereign Government that it will have a minor role in an NIR. If an
NIR truly represents the economy it is located in, surely all interested
parties in that economy will establish exactly what the representation
- Section 5. None of the advantages listed are obvious from reading the
text as it stands. I can see substantial disadvantages though.
- Section 6. "APNIC members undergo conditional allocations". Please
explain. No evidence provided in text. First mention of creation of NIR
covering communities in multiple countries - what is the rationale for this?
- Section 7 I believe is incomplete. This policy proposal has
substantial impact on the existing NIRs as it changes the fundamental
basis for their existence as it would be entirely feasible for another
organisation or group of organisations to establish themselves as an NIR
within the existing NIR's operational area. This would quite likely be
counter to the existing NIR's rules of association.
I believe this proposal needs substantial work to resolve the issues I
mentioned above. As it stands, it has significant impact on the entire
APNIC, NIR and LIR structure and relationship; I feel this needs to be
carefully considered and documented.
Randy Bush said the following on 28/8/08 06:46:
> Dear SIG members
> Version 2 of the proposal 'Change in the criteria for the recognition of
> NIRs in the APNIC region' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It
> will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 26 in Christchurch, New
> Zealand, 25-29 August 2008.
> The proposal's history can be found at:
> This new version of the proposal contains a shortened section 2,
> "Summary of current problem" and removes points 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 from
> section 4, "Details of the proposal".
> This revised proposal will be discussed in the Policy SIG this morning.
> We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
> tell the community about your situation.
> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
> randy and jian
> prop-060-v002: Change in the criteria for the recognition of NIRs in
> the APNIC region
> Author: Kusumba Sridhar
> <kusumba at vebtel dot com>
> Version: 2
> Date: 28 August 2008
> 1. Introduction
> This is a proposal to update the criteria for recognising new National
> Internet Registries (NIRs) in the APNIC region.
> The current criteria are described in the following policy document:
> APNIC-104: Criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region
> 2. Summary of current problem
> The existing Policy frame work was last published on 1st December 2002
> and the same was not re-visited since then. There has been significant
> change in the Political, Economic and Operational situations in various
> economies, especially the growing economies. The very structure of
> Internet and its Resources has changed in several economies. The
> industry participation has also grown significantly leading Internet to
> be as ubiquitous as any other resource like Electricity, Water, Shelter
> etc., In such a situation, it is important that the very industry
> decides the future and applicability of the Internet resources and also
> controls them through a community friendly environment. The Government,
> while taking a neutral position, is required to support such resources
> but must refrain from controlling the same.
> The current NIR recognizing criteria requires any Industry
> representation to have endorsement of the proposal from the Government
> agency (Section 3.1) that is responsible for Internet related activities
> including issuing licenses to ISPs etc in a respective country. APNIC
> considers any application without such endorsement as "in-complete"
> proposal and will not forward to the Executive Council for processing or
> approving a NIR.
> However, in a situation where such proposal is originated by a unit or
> division or department of the Government, such proposal could go through
> since the Government endorsement is easily or sometimes automatically
> available to them. This is also applicable for National Information
> Centers, Internet Exchanges etc., that are largely and many times fully
> controlled and manned by the Government.
> It is not automatic agreement that a NIC in any country could be the
> "first-choice" to form NIR by the Policy. However, in a situation where
> it is important for the "Internet" itself to move towards a
> free-regulatory World, unfortunately in the several growing economies it
> is noticed that Internet is still largely manned by the Government. The
> readers may kindly appreciate the difference between "controlling" and
> "manning". Due to several Security, Economic and Political reasons, it
> may be required that Internet is controlled in such economies.
> Due to this, Government has taken control of Infrastructure networks
> such as NIC, IXPs etc., with participation of Industry up to an extent
> that it is a meager contributing-participation and not decisive-
> participation in certain economies.
> 1. Government represented agencies will be having control on
> Internet Resource allocation in the economy, if such NIR is
> formed by Government controlled agency.
> 2. Policy only indicates but may not restrict Government to enforce
> rules to obtain resources from NIR and not APNIC directly.
> 3. Government under the ambit of National Security may demonstrate
> the need for the Service Providers to only obtain resources from
> regional NIR and not from APNIC despite the policy indication.
> 4. Member or User community may loose opportunity to grow the
> networks largely due to very reason that they may need to obtain
> Internet resources only from such NIR and the regulator who is
> also directly associated with such NIRs or Policy makers, may
> dismiss or delay such allocation requests against any pending
> issue or matter concerned to that Service provider and the
> government or Regulator.
> 5. Despite NIR proposal being sent through a Government controlled
> agency, the EC may have right to reject such proposal if it has
> noticed suitable objections from members. However, in the current
> policy criteria, the scope of such objections is only "external"
> and not within the policy framework or work flow.
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> ARIN, RIPE and AfriNIC do not have NIRs. LACNIC has NIRs but does not
> have a policy document for the recognition of new NIRs.
> 4. Details of the proposal
> Proposed changes in the policy:
> 1. Any NIR application must be put on voting process, both through
> Online Voting and Voting at AMM and must achieve support.
> 2. Any NIR application must be put on voting process, both through
> Online Voting and Voting at AMM and must achieve at least 75%
> support from the members within that Economy. In such a case,
> voting is open only for members from that Economy.
> 3. Section 3.2.2 must mention that the Board composition of the NIR
> must have majority representation from Members, followed by
> Academic or Research Organizations etc. The Government or its
> participating agencies must have minor role compared to other
> representations on the Board of NIR.
> 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> There are several advantages of adopting such policy:
> 1. Neutrality which is inline to "Open Policy" levels while
> considering a NIR proposal.
> 2. Mandates Global Policies for creating Free Access to Internet
> 3. Improves participation by membership community in Internet
> 4. Removes the Conditional Policy barriers in several countries where
> the Governments cannot impose such conditional terms for
> obtaining resources.
> There are no disadvantages by adopting the policy.
> 6. Effect on APNIC
> APNIC members would be benefited by such policy since they don't have to
> fear for undergoing conditional allocations of resources. At the
> same time, membership communities in several countries, if eligible by
> this policy, will be able to form NIR that is community controlled
> rather than any incumbent or Government controlled NIR.
> 7. Effect on NIRs
> There is no effect on NIRs.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net