RE: New draft of NIR criteria document

["Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>]

Dear all,

I'm very happy to see such an active and productive discussion on this
mailing list. 

The issue being discussed is certainly important, but I would urge you
to consider other aspects of the document as well.


In response to Arano san's question...

> Let me try to rephase Kosuke's question. I am not 100% sure what
> his intention is, though.
> 
> As far as I believe, current implicit consensus and practices
> between APNIC and NIRs are
> - APNIC delegates IP number management in a country to 
> corresponding NIR,
> - it's almost exclusive, but not completely exclusive.
> - that is, LIR can choose APNIC as well as NIR.
> - but APNIC always suggests such LIR to go back to the NIR once and
>     finally accepts and processes their requests.
> 
> If the case, the questions are
> 1) does the draft intend to change these current practices?
> 2) why, if so?

The document is definitely NOT intended to change the current practise
in this regard.  It was written to describe the current practise
accurately, but if it is creating confusion or concern in its current
form, then I think that the wording needs work.

I can certainly review this in the next draft, but I would welcome
specific suggestions.  For a start, I would happily make explicit that
APNIC will always refer membership enquiries back to the NIR where it
exists (as is the current practise).

Regards,

Paul.