Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion: prop-97
I'm not in support of this proposal. It doesn't address ARIN region concerns
that have prevented previous like-minded policies from succeeding. I'm
confused as to why the authors didn't try to influence a similar, existing,
global policy that accomplishes much of the same thing. prop-086-v003 has
made it to all regions. It was passed in the ARIN region and has some level
of support in other regions. The APNIC region rejected a previous version
and has had little discussion on a post discussion version that addressed
most of the APNIC region concerns.
Personally, I'm not sure that the IANA will ever see an address from any
legacy holder or RIR and we ought to abandon all of these proposals
forthwith as they are distracting all of us from worthwhile work.
Subsequently, I've withdrawn my support for prop-086-v003.
Best,
-M<
On 2/22/11 8:52 PM, "Gaurab Raj Upadhaya" <gaurab at lahai dot com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-097: Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms
> by the IANA
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage
> you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy
> SIG.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence
>
>
> Proposal summary
> - ----------------
>
> This proposal describes the process that IANA will follow to allocate
> IPv4 resources to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) after the central
> pool of addresses is exhausted.
>
> The processes for how IPv4 space may be placed in the IANA Recovered
> IPv4 Pool is out of the scope of this proposal.
>
>
> Discussion statistics
> - ---------------------
>
> Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 25 January 2011
>
> Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 20 February 2011
>
> Number of posts since proposal first posted: 6
>
> Number of people participating in discussions: 3
>
>
> Summary of discussion to date
> - -----------------------------
>
> - The requirement for an RIR to put into the pool before it can
> withdraw, was queried and subsequently removed in Version 2.
>
> - Following a query, the word log was removed in Version 2, to
> clarify that the reporting process for resources re-allocated under this
> proposal would be in the form of a registry.
>
> - There was concern that it would take at least one year for this
> proposal to achieve consensus in all RIR regions.
>
> - It was pointed out that this proposal does not address the issue
> of transfers, "the primary reason that ARIN rejected the mandatory
> return clause of prop-069 was this transfer issue and the need to uphold
> the values expressed in RFC 2050 (namely needs-based resource allocation)."
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-097
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk1kaHMACgkQSo7fU26F3X2LjQCeJYRwDUdZvi7PFRX8ClWYuzrS
> IUQAn26JK06m8COSaYcu13scMwm/YhHi
> =YGbc
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> * 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