APNIC Home APNIC Home
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [sig-policy] FW: Prop-050 concerns from RIPE

I think I should take some time to clarify my position.

I am not against prop-50. nor am I against prop-071 and prop-072
What concerns me is a "time gap" in regulation. eg if prop-50 gets implemented, people acquire address space under prop-50, and then at a later stage prop-071 and 072 are implemented thus creating a few months of de-regulation gap. That is just an in-consistent position for any sort of regulatory body. (and would be a headache for the titles office)
I personally would prefer that prop-50 had the regulatory controls in place with prop-071 and 072 until the last /8 is reached (and only until). However if the policy proposals cannot merge and become effective the same time then I'm perfectly happy to see prop-50 progress as is.
In my opinion the SIG should provide every opportunity for 071 and 072 to either reach consensus at the next member meeting or be dropped. If those two proposals do not reach consensus at the next meeting then it would be fairly clear to me that we should accept that the days of v4 regulation in the AP region have passed and it is time for the community, through business processes, to handle the final distribution of v4 to those players that are desperate for it.
If, and only if, the APNIC EC and secretariat CANNOT provide the opportunity for the 071 or 072 proposals to be in effect in unison with 050, then I would suggest the options are: - that the individual proposals 071/072 are dropped asap - so prop 50 can move on - if the policy SIG is desperate for the regulation of prop-071/072 in prop-050 then the SIG co-chairs and EC might like to consider that consensus wasn't maintained
Does this clarify my position? I see transfers critically important in the future of the 'net for a great number of reasons - many of which have already been covered on this list at at the meeting by several respondents. 

Terry

On 30/04/2009, at 2:30 PM, cwkuo wrote:


I also agree with Terry and Ji-Young.
The prop-50 doesn't justify use of transferred space using the allocation and assignment policies and restrictions, it will conflict with the goals of address management of Conservation and Fairness (You can see at "5 Goals of 
address space management",
http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy.html ). Because prop-50
doesn't have the mechanism of the justifications and restrictions, it will cause the backdoor of stockpile of IP address. On the other hand, APNIC members get IP address from APNIC allocation will need to be justified, but prop-50 doesn't need to be justified, it will cause the issue of fairness. 

Best regards,
Sheng-Wei Kuo

-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Ji-Young Lee (???) 
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:57 AM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE

I agree with Terry

If prop-050 is implemented without any supplemental policies,
it would be very vulnerable to any attempts to stockpile ipv4 without any 
actual demand and accelerate free pool runout.

regards,
ji-young

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Manderson" <terry@terrym.net>
To: "Sam Dickinson" <sam@apnic.net>
Cc: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>; <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE



Sam and all,

Very helpful thanks..

So if the consensus is maintained with Prop-050 may I respectfully
recommend the EC and Secretariat to keep to a 6 month (or longer)
implementation time to allow the machine to churn through Prop-071/072 
and meet up with prop-050 at implementation if possible.

I accept this appears as a slippery slope. And if prop-050 needs such
a crutch then maybe policy itself is immature, needs work and we as a
community might consider to not maintain the consensus call.

Terry

On 16/04/2009, at 12:07 PM, Sam Dickinson wrote:


Hello Terry

You are correct in remembering that the Secretariat had posted to
this list that if a proposal like prop-050 were to become policy, it
would take six months after EC to implement it. As stated in that
earlier post, that timeline could change a little once we create a
detailed implementation plan. Implementation usually takes around 3
months, but can happen sooner or later, depending on the
complexities of implementation. We have had policies implemented
within days of EC endorsement (for example, prop-041) and policies
that have taken as long as 11 months to implement (for example,
prop-007).

I hope that helps.

Regards
Sam

On 16/4/09 10:10 AM, Terry Manderson wrote:

Before I make any comments regarding the potential for a "gap" in
regulation (and people capitalising on it) between the
implementation  of Prop-050 and the possible implementation of
Prop-071/072 (assuming  consensus) perhaps we might consider the
timelines for the secretariat  to implement and enact the policies.
From what I recall APNIC said it would take 6 months to implement
Prop-50 after EC endorsement.
I'm guessing that since Prop-071/072 are modifications to Prop-50
in  re-application/allocation times (in essence) I would think that
if  consensus for them was reached at APNIC28, they could be
implemented  immediately after EC endorsement.
So my presumption is that due to the 6 months implementation time
of  Prop-50. Prop071 and 072 could be implemented at the same time.
(*)
(*) Yes, this means that prop071/072 are in a win/loss state - if
they don't reach consensus at APNIC28 they are pretty well done for. 
APNIC secretariat, can you please clarify if my reading of the
timelines is correct and provide the exact dates when items fall due? 
Cheers
Terry
On 16/04/2009, at 8:43 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

FWIW, I share these concerns.

-Scott

On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:


As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would
like
to
express our concern about prop-050.

this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg?
this
was
discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?

Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE
APWG
mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)
so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for 
your
input.

randy
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management
policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management
policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management
policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy



--
_____________________________________________________________________
Samantha Dickinson email: sam@apnic.net Policy Development Manager, APNIC sip: sam@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 

*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
*
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy



*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
*
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * 
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy