Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
If we close the policy forum in APNIC and only EC has a power to
treat a policy, I don't see major differences between APNIC and
ITU as a ordinary community member.
Yes, bottom-up process takes time, but I believe the bottom-up,
open and transparent policy development processes are the spirit
of the Internet community. It's important to keep the door open.
Regards,
Shin
>
> Hi all,
>
> I also speak only for myself.
>
> In IPv4 area, address allocation is ongoing, so I think we need to
> watch the status, and have to discuss allocation policy as needed. And
> as Akai-san said, we will have some discussion topics such as
> modification of final /8 policy, inter-RIR transfer policy and so on.
> APNIC will obtain returned IPv4 address from IANA, so I personally
> think we should discuss how to utilize those address. Many people wrote
> IPv4 was over, however, there is demand for IPv4 address even now.
>
> In IPv6 area, we will have some topics that we don't have now, such as
> modification of current allocation policy, allocation policy for
> outside of 2000::/3, DB restoration issues, DNS reverse delegation
> issues and so on.
>
> And moreover, I think current bottom-up policy process, anyone can
> propose any policies is necessary. (but I do not mean discussion
> about PDP is unnecessary. We should discuss how the policy process in
> AP region should be in the future.)
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> --
> Tomohiro Fujisaki
>
> From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
> Subject: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 05:32:01 +1200
>
> | 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