to no surprise drove a few discussions. Without making this long, and at the same time trying to keep the original comment's feelings intact, I have tried to summarize the comments made. A few comments where made that there is still usage/need for IPv4 and that stopping all policy discussion in this situation does not make sense. One comment was made that there are more and more complex policies being proposed but since their effects are limited, it may be time to talk about priority. Another was that the proposal gives us a good chance to think about the situation, but closing policy sig is going too far, especially the part about handing the rest over to the EC. But we may not need to hold a policy meeting at every APNIC mtg. One comment was made that a bottom up process of the PDP is important in keeping the current Internet open and wholesome. Seiichi (2012/07/09 11:50), Seiichi Kawamura wrote: > I will take it to the JANOG list. > > 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 >> > > > > > * 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