[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] FW: Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
Since many concerns are raised about prop-050 without supplemental policies,
and we also understand it will take 3-6 months to implement prop-050,
but prop-071/072 maynot reach consensus soon enough to meet up with
the implementation of prop-050.
Can we consider the proposal to take effect when supplemental proposal
like prop-071/072 reach consensus?
Best Regards
Terence Zhang
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Manderson" <terry@terrym.net>
To: <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 1:32 PM
Subject: 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
>
> * 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
