Re: [sig-policy] End of comment period for APNIC 29 policy proposals
If so, I don't stick to continueing discussion.
Rgs,
Masato
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Philip Smith
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:18 PM
> To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] End of comment period for APNIC 29
> policy proposals
>
> If the cases of misuse of the existing policy are increasing, then I'd
> prefer to see this proposal pass.
>
> I agree that someone should introduce a new policy proposal (which I'm
> happy to help author) which would deal with the intent of the original
> policy without potential for misuse.
>
> philip
> --
>
> Paul Wilson said the following on 7/05/10 12:25 :
> > Yi Chu, Masato san and all,
> >
> > APNIC staff have reported that this policy may have been
> used in certain
> > cases to "amplify" address holdings, for instance by
> exchanging 5 /24s for
> > a /21 (representing 8 /24s), and then repeating that
> process over time.
> > While such transactions are allowed by the policy, they may
> be interpreted
> > as cases of "misuse" of the policy.
> >
> > As these cases appear to be increasing, and may increase
> more due to
> > awareness generated by this discussion, I would request
> that we allow the
> > proposal to pass, and then consider reintroducing the
> policy in future with
> > amendments which could prevent or reduce cases of (apparent) abuse.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Paul Wilson.
> >
> >
> >
> > --On 7 May 2010 10:34:28 AM +0900 myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> IMHO, Yi and RandyW's comments are not objections actually,
> >> rather good inputs for further improvement of this proposal.
> >> (Sorry for using another terminology > Chairs)
> >>
> >> So, why not return to ML for further discussion unless authors have
> >> urgent issue?
> >>
> >> Rgs,
> >> Masato
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> >>> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Yi Chu
> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:41 AM
> >>> To: Randy Bush; Policy SIG
> >>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] End of comment period for APNIC 29
> >>> policy proposals
> >>>
> >>> I was the one raised one of the objections. I consider my
> >>> objection 'substantial', as the proposal would take away a
> >>> good practice for the general good of the Internet.
> >>>
> >>> yi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----
> >>> From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
> >>> To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
> >>> Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 4:17:06 AM
> >>> Subject: [sig-policy] End of comment period for APNIC 29
> >>> policy proposals
> >>>
> >>>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> >>>
> >>> prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy
> >>>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> >>>
> >>> Dear colleagues
> >>>
> >>> The eight-week final comment period for the proposal
> 'Removal of IPv4
> >>> prefix exchange policy' has ended. During the final days of
> >>> the comment
> >>> period there were two objections raised to the proposal. The
> >>> Chairs are
> >>> a bit ambivalent about whether the objections are
> >>> 'substantial' or not.
> >>> According to the APNIC Policy Development Process:
> >>>
> >>> - If the objections are considered 'substantial', it
> >>> means that the
> >>> proposal cannot be deemed to have reached consensus
> in the final
> >>> comment period.
> >>>
> >>> - If the objections are not considered 'substantial', it
> >>> means that
> >>> the proposal can be deemed to have reached consensus.
> >>>
> >>> The Chairs therefore ask the community to help us decide
> whether to
> >>> consider the two objections received as 'substantial'. We
> >>> welcome your
> >>> input on this to the mailing list by the end of Wednesday, 12 May
> >>> 2010. The question we are asking is:
> >>>
> >>> - Do you think the objections made to prop-080 are
> substantial?
> >>> Yes/No
> >>>
> >>> For a detailed history of this proposal see:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-080
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> >>> Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
> >>>
> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
> >>> policy *
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> sig-policy mailing list
> >>> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
> >>> policy *
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> sig-policy mailing list
> >>> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> >>>
> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> >> * _______________________________________________
> >> sig-policy mailing list
> >> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC
> <dg at apnic dot net>
> > http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7
> 3858 3100/99
> >
> > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource
> management policy *
> > _______________________________________________
> > sig-policy mailing list
> > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
> policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>