Re: [sig-policy] New Version of prop-103: A Final IP Address Policy Prop
>
> As a strawman if some changes were made to section 4, then I think the
> intent of the proposal stands, but it gives some guidance on how the
> PDP could be changed to accomplish the intent.
>
> How about...
this is fine with me
randy
> 4. Details
> ----------
>
> IPv4 policy proposals should be carefully examined to ensure that they
> provide a solution to a well defined problem and they address real
> needs that can not be accomplished with existing processes.
> Discussion of the problem should precede proposals for new policy to
> address the problem.
>
> The following process describes how this discussion could be included
> within the current PDP.
>
> . A Problem Statement is posted to the Policy-SIG list outlining a
> problem or issue with the current APNIC policies.
> . The proposer leads conversation on the Policy-SIG list to develop
> possible solutions to this Problem Statement.
> . At this stage the APNIC Secretariat can comment if they consider
> that the Problem Statement can be covered within current policies.
> . When the proposer feels that they have a solution to their Problem
> Statement, they draft a policy and submit it in a similar fashion as
> occurs currently within the PDP.
>
> This will ensure that policy proposals have a clearly stated problem
> statement and that any major objections are at least voiced early in
> the process.
>
> In general, the same should hold for IPv6, although it is realized
> that, as we learn more about IPv6 use and deployment, more policy
> development may be useful.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Dean
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
> > Dear SIG members
> >
> > Version 002 of the proposal "prop-103: A Final IP Address Policy
> > Proposal" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be
> > presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 34 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 30
> > August 2012.
> >
> > Information about this version and version 001 is available from:
> >
> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-103
> >
> > You are encouraged you to express your views on the proposal:
> >
> > - Do you support or oppose 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?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > prop-103-v002: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Author: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
> >
> >
> > 1. Introduction
> > ---------------
> >
> > IPv4 is history, with no immediate need to add more policy. IPv6 is
> > sufficiently plentiful that a lot of further policy making is probably
> > not needed. So let us agree to make no more IP address policies or
> > proposals except those which are clearly needed and for which can not be
> > accomplished with current procedures.
> >
> >
> > 2. Summary
> > ----------
> >
> > The APNIC community spends time and resources proposing, discussing,
> > arguing, ... about IP address policies out of habit. The process is
> > important in that it maintains an open policy process but often these
> > proposals are not really relevant to actually coordinating the prudent
> > and high quality operation of the internet.
> >
> >
> > 3. Situation in other RIRs
> > --------------------------
> >
> > The community spends 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
> > ----------
> >
> > IPv4 policy proposals should be carefully examined to ensure that they
> > are really necessary and they address real needs that can not be
> > accomplished with existing processes. Discussion of the problem should
> > preceed proposals for new policy to address the problem.
> >
> > In general, the same should hold for IPv6, although it is realized that,
> > as we learn more about IPv6 use and deployment, more policy development
> > may be useful.
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Dean
> * 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