Seiichi (2012/07/09 11:45), Terry Manderson wrote: > > Speaking only for myself. > > I find myself, surprisingly, agreeing with the intent of Randy's proposal that embodies the idea that now less is more. > > I'm not sure that I see an end to IPv6 policy yet. I think we have only a small surface area of deployment compared to what is needed. > > V4 wise, I do expect some folks to raise concerns over time with regard to IPv4 transfers that might result in some policy action and I also wonder if the AP region might benefit from address space made available through a pool of returned IPv4 addresses (by RIRs) to IANA should an RIR have less than a /9 of v4 inventory. > > But that is a very small list of three scenarios and I would be comfortable with a charter amendment of the SIG to focus only on policies proposals in those 3 key areas. I'd also be happy to see the SIG go into a hiatus until such a proposal meets the criteria. > > I, like Dean, will bounce the email to the AusNOG list and then relay any collected comments and sentiment. > > Thanks Randy, for the motivation to put the idea out there. > > Terry > > On 09/07/2012, at 3:32 AM, Andy Linton wrote: > >> Dear SIG members >> >> The proposal "prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal" has >> been sent to the Policy SIG for review. >> >> It will be discussed at the Policy SIG at APNIC 34 in Phnom Penh, >> Cambodia, Thursday, 30 August 2012. >> >> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list >> before the meeting. >> >> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an >> important part of the policy development process. 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 >> effective? >> >> Information about this and other policy proposals is available from: >> >> https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-103 >> >> Andy, Skeeve, Masato >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Author: Randy Bush >> <randy at psg dot com> >> >> >> 1. Introduction >> ------------------- >> >> IPv4 is history, with no need to add more policy. IPv6 is sufficiently >> plentiful that further policies are not needed. So let us agree to make >> no more IP address policies or proposals. >> >> >> 2. Summary >> ---------------- >> >> The APNIC community spends time and resources proposing, discussing, >> arguing, ... about IP address policies out of habit. The process is no >> longer relevant to actually coordinating the prudent and high quality >> operation of the internet. >> >> >> 3. Situation in other RIRs >> --------------------------------- >> >> There is an industry of policy wannabes spending inordinate time and >> resources making endless policy proposals about miniscule issues and >> baroque corner cases. This is a waste of time and other resources. >> >> >> 4. Details >> ------------- >> >> The policy proposal and decision processes should be closed and stopped >> after the Phnom Penh meeting. >> >> Should an emergency arise, where community consensus is needed, the EC >> can organize fora for forming that consensus. >> >> >> 5. Pros/Cons >> ----------------- >> >> Advantages: >> >> - We would not have to spend time discussing things of small >> consequence and which do not help the customer/user in any real way. >> >> Disadvantages: >> >> - It would impact the amateur careers of policy wannabes. This is a >> feature, not a bug. >> >> >> 6. Effect on APNIC >> ------------------------- >> >> Saves money, time, and other resources such as administrative complexity >> created by more complex but useless policies. >> >> >> 7. Effect on NIRs >> ----------------------- >> >> Saves money, time, and other resources such as administrative complexity >> created by more complex but useless policies.. >> * 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 >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature