Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
On Jul 10, 2012, at 8:40 AM, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
> sorry for possible misunderstanding - but as I understood you expressed concerns in ability of bottom up process as it will follow to new permanent bureaucracy.
Err, no. Apologies if I was unclear. I was pointing out that some "bottom-up" organizations like the IETF have mechanisms that (at least in theory) discourage the establishment of a permanent body that spends its time trying to figure out things to do so it can continue to justify its existence. APNIC has similar mechanisms, however I'll admit I see some risk that a generalized SIG would be exempt from these mechanisms.
By referencing the IETF, I was trying to point at an alternative to the generalized SIG model. For example, "inter-RIR transfers" has been mentioned as a justification for the continuation of the Policy SIG. An alternative would be to propose a SIG specifically to revise APNIC's policy on inter-RIR transfers. If there is sufficient interest in the community to undertake that revision, then a SIG could be spun up to focus specifically on that task and, when completed, would be disbanded. This would likely reduce the risk that folks would propose continual tweaks to 'good enough' policies (for whatever reason).
> we should simplify - and should escape dangerous final to become something like ITU or something else - yes, we faulted sometimes in bottom up ideas - but it doesn't mean that we should reject all our experience regarding deployment just one technology - to be honest - I still think that it was a mistake independent how many of us spent significant part of our life to deploy it.
Sorry, I don't recall suggesting we 'reject all our experience regarding deployment just one technology'. I merely suggested that Randy's proposal not be dismissed out of hand and that there is much to be said for stability in policy if the desire is to get work done instead of arguing about fractal deck chair rearrangement and/or provide venues for missionary work.
Regards,
-drc