sig-policy June 2014

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

9 participants
7 discussions

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 30 Jun '14

30 Jun '14

Dear Subscriber, This is the monthly reminder of subscription information for the sig-policy list, hosted at APNIC. For subscription information including how to un-subscribe go to http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy Thank you for participating in this discussion. Kind Regards, List administrator

1 0

Chairing the next APNIC Policy SIG meeting
by Andy Linton 29 Jun '14

29 Jun '14

Masato and I met up at the recent ICANN meeting in London and discussed the chairing of the next meeting. I'm in the UK for several months and will be at the time of the next meeting. We've agreed that I won't make the trek to Brisbane from the UK and that he will chair the sessions at APNIC38. We are confident that the process will work just fine. His term as co-chair expires at the meeting but the recent changes which were made to the process mean that he will chair this meeting regardless of the outcome of the election. You will recall we agreed that we did this so that a newly elected chair or co-chair did not have to take over a policy proposal in mid stream and that an existing chair or co-chair would see a proposal through to completion of the Last Call if Consensus was reached. He and I will continue to work on the process via email throughout the period. Regards, andy

1 0

Nominations now open for Number Resource Organization Number Council
by Adam Gosling 17 Jun '14

17 Jun '14

________________________________________________________________________ Nominations now open for Number Resource Organization Number Council ________________________________________________________________________ The nomination period for the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) opened, 16 June 2014. The NRO NC performs the role of the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC). The term of Naresh Ajwani will end on 31 December 2014. One individual from the Asia Pacific Internet community will be elected to fill this vacant seat on the NRO NC for two years from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2016. How to nominate --------------- Any individual is eligible for nomination, except Regional Internet Registry (RIR) staff members. Self-nominations are permitted. To nominate yourself or someone else as a candidate for the position, please submit your nominations using our online form by 17:30 (UTC +10) on 15 August 2014. http://conference.apnic.net/38/elections/nominate More information ---------------- For more information about the role and the NRO NC, please see: http://www.apnic.net/about-the-nro For more on the current members of the NRO NC, please see: http://aso.icann.org/people/address-council/address-council-members If you have any questions, please contact: helpdesk(a)apnic.net<mailto:helpdesk@apnic.net> ________________________________________________________________________ APNIC Secretariat secretariat(a)apnic.net<mailto:secretariat@apnic.net> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD http://www.apnic.net<http://www.apnic.net/> ________________________________________________________________________ * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.

1 0

RIPE Policy Text for Inter-RIR Transfers - 2014-05
by Skeeve Stevens 07 Jun '14

07 Jun '14

Here is the policy text being proposed in RIPE for Inter-RIR Transfers - 2014-05 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-05 ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd skeeve(a)eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering

6 10

FW: [apnic-talk] Demonstrated Need Transfers - Seeking Opinions
by Masato Yamanishi 06 Jun '14

06 Jun '14

All, Sorry duplicate copy, but let me share it as I believe it is helpful for understanding current situation about demonstration needs in Inter-RIR transfer. Rgs, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Co-chair On 14/06/06 15:35, "Masato Yamanishi" <myamanis(a)japan-telecom.com> wrote: > Elvis and all, > > Sorry for late reply, but I had a chance to talk with some of ARIN AC members > and ARIN staff, so let me share their feedbacks. > > 1. It is ARIN staffs' responsibility to show the implications of current ARIN > policy and they think current proposed idea on apnic-talk, > which removes DN only from Intra-RIR transfer, is not compatible with > ARIN transfer policy as it is, > since ARIN requires DN for both of Inter and Intra RIR transfer case. > > 2. Even if ARIN staff would think it is compatible, ARIN community may raise a > issue that it can be used to milk ARIN's remaining pool. > So, adding more restrictions for Intra-RIR transfer of address spaces > which were transferred from other RIRs (e.g. DN requirement, 12months > restriction) > may be helpful to relax their concern. > > 3. ARIN's concern for milking is applicable only before the exhaustion of > their remaining pool and it is expected to happen > at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. So, we may see > different discussion after that. > > I hope it helps your understanding and discussion. > > Rgs, > Masato Yamanishi > > > On 14/06/04 7:39, "Elvis Velea" <elvis(a)velea.eu> wrote: > >> >> Hi Masato, >> >> I was really hoping that someone from ARIN will respond to either my e-mail >> or yours. >> >> Anyway, while we are waiting for them to respond, I would like to notify the >> community on the latest developments in the RIPE region. >> >> As mentioned in my previous message, 2012-02 has been withdrawn and Sandra >> Brown has sent a new policy proposal to the RIPE community, 2014-05. This >> policy proposal enables Inter-RIR transfers between the RIPE region and the >> other regions with active Inter-RIR transfer policies (ARIN and APNIC for >> now). >> >> I already talked to Sandra during the previous RIPE Meeting and discussed >> the possible ways forward for what is now known as 2014-05. While Sandra is >> supposed to be our competition :-) I would nevertheless like to acknowledge >> the great work she has done for 2014-05 and would like to invite her to >> (maybe) send the same or a very similar policy proposal in the APNIC region >> as well. If she does not have time for it, I would like to come up with a >> similar proposal in the APNIC region to be discussed before and during the >> meeting in Brisbane. >> Basically, her proposal is asking the RIPE NCC to create an operational >> procedure and work with the other RIRs to allow Inter-RIR transfers. (if >> incoming transfers to the RIPE region from ARIN/APNIC will require need based >> justification, the RIPE NCC will request it's member/LIR to provide the >> justification). >> >> As far as I have seen and heard from various people in this community, DN >> for post-exhaustion has already been removed once and only added because ARIN >> had it in their policy. If we work on a new policy proposal, maybe we can >> remove DN for everything else but ARIN incoming IPs (for as long as ARIN will >> keep DN in their policy) and still be compatible with RIPE and ARIN policies >> regarding Inter-RIR transfers. >> >> Kind regards, >> Elvis >> >> >> On 28/05/14 09:01, Masato Yamanishi wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Elvis and All, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regarding inter-RIR transfer with ARIN, Sec 8.4 of ARIN NRPM says, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 8.4. Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients >>> >>> >>> >>> Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the >>> transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So, it means APNIC policy should be accepted as "reciprocal, compatible, >>> needs-based policies" by ARIN community >>> >>> to keep Inter-RIR transfer between ARIN and APNIC. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> > The policy proposal would remove DN for transfers between APNIC members. >>>> Basically, no DN for Intra-RIR transfers and DN verified by the receiving >>>> RIR if they have it in policy. >>>> > It would also permit transfers from ARIN or RIPE NCC to APNIC (keeping >>>> the DN in policy only if the sending RIR still has such a policy). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Can somebody participating ARIN discussion actively clarify whether this >>> idea is still reciprocal with ARIN NRPM >>> >>> which requires demonstrated needs for both of Intra-RIR transfer and >>> Inter-RIR transfer? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Rgs, >>> >>> Masato Yamanishi >>> >>> APNIC Policy SIG Co-Chair >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14/05/27 10:54, "Elvis Velea" <elvis(a)velea.eu> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> I agree with Skeeve that we should start a discussion about Demonstrated >>>> Need (DN). >>>> >>>> let me try and make a summary of current changes to transfers policies: >>>> >>>> A. RIPE region >>>> currently the RIPE region does no longer have a DN for Intra-RIR >>>> transfers. Policy proposal 2013-03 has cleanup the IPv4 policy and removed >>>> the DN for anything except the request of the last /22 from the RIPE NCC. >>>> Additionally, the Inter-RIR policy proposal 2012-02 will be withdrawn and >>>> a new policy proposal will be made shortly, as announced during RIPE68. [1] >>>> >>>> The new policy proposal will be made soon and it will say that: >>>> - for transfers to other RIRs: >>>> "When internet resources are transferred to another RIR, then RIPE NCC >>>> will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the receiving >>>> LIR." >>>> - for transfers into the RIPE region: >>>> "RIPE NCC will work with its member LIR to fulfill any requirements of the >>>> sending RIR" >>>> >>>> In other words, the transfer into the RIPE region will have DN only if the >>>> sending RIR will have such a policy. There will be no DN requirement for >>>> transfers from the RIPE region. However, the receiving RIR will need to >>>> approve based on it's policies. >>>> >>>> B. ARIN region >>>> >>>> There is, indeed, policy proposal 2014-14 (removal of DN for any transfers >>>> smaller than /16 per year). but I have not seen any discussion on it. If >>>> this policy proposal is approved (and that is a big if) I think that 8.4 in >>>> the ARIN NRPM could be interpreted as: /16 or lower per year can be done >>>> without DN. However, I hope that an ARIN representative may clarify. >>>> >>>> C. APNIC region >>>> >>>> APNIC had no DN policy when it reached the last /8 but it has been added >>>> back just because ARIN required it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Considering the latest developments, I would actually like to work on >>>> proposing a policy change in APNIC before APNIC38. >>>> >>>> The policy proposal would remove DN for transfers between APNIC members. >>>> Basically, no DN for Intra-RIR transfers and DN verified by the receiving >>>> RIR if they have it in policy. >>>> It would also permit transfers from ARIN or RIPE NCC to APNIC (keeping >>>> the DN in policy only if the sending RIR still has such a policy). >>>> >>>> What would the community think of such idea/policy proposal? >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Elvis >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://ripe68.ripe.net/presentations/292-RIPE-2014_Inter-RIR_Transfers.pdf >>>> >>>> On 19/05/14 03:01, Dean Pemberton wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for that Adam. >>>>> >>>>> So there we go... >>>>> >>>>> We decided that we didn't need DN for transfers (prop-50). Then we >>>>> decided that we needed it again (prop-96) so that ARIN would play with >>>>> us. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Adam Gosling <adam(a)apnic.net> >>>>> <mailto:adam@apnic.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Skeeve, Dean >>>>>> >>>>>> The removal of DN in APNIC transfers was originally endorsed under >>>>>> prop-50, see below. For a very short time after IPv4 exhaustion APNIC >>>>>> actually operated under this policy before prop-096: Maintaining >>>>>> demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 >>>>>> phase >>>>>> added it back in. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> prop-050: IPv4 address transfers >>>>>> http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/text_file/0009/12420/prop-050-v005.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Conditions on recipient of the transfer: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Prior to the exhaustion of APNIC's IPv4 space (i.e. prior to the >>>>>> use of the "final /8" allocation measures) recipients of >>>>>> transfers will be required to justify their need for address >>>>>> space. After this time there is no requirement for any form of >>>>>> evaluation of requirements for eligibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Also of note is that the ARIN AC recently accepted "ARIN-prop-204 >>>>>> Removing >>>>>> Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers" as a Draft Policy. >>>>>> <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-May/028486.html>. As Bill >>>>>> rightly notes, this is a very early stage in the ARIN PDP. >>>>>> >>>>>> The status page for the proposal is >>>>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_14.html >>>>>> >>>>>> This proposal would change the DN for ARIN recipients only. ARIN’s policy >>>>>> on Inter-RIR transfers may be found here >>>>>> <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight4> It states that >>>>>> "Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the >>>>>> transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies.” >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently the conditions on the recipient of a transfer are: "The >>>>>> conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be defined by >>>>>> the policies of the receiving RIR.” >>>>>> >>>>>> So my understanding is that while APNIC is (of course) free to change >>>>>> it’s >>>>>> transfers DN at any time, the ARIN Secretariat must be satisfied APNIC >>>>>> has >>>>>> a “compatible, needs-based” policy, or it would not be able to authorise >>>>>> the transfer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Adam Gosling >>>>>> Internet Policy Development Consultant email: adam(a)apnic.net >>>>>> APNIC >>>>>> sip: adam@voip.apnic.nethttp://www.apnic.net >>>>>> phone: +61 7 >>>>>> 3858 3100 >>>>>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 19/05/2014 10:05 am, "Dean Pemberton" <dean(a)deanpemberton.com> >>>>>> <mailto:dean@deanpemberton.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The details of APNIC transfer policy prop-95 removed the requirement >>>>>>> for the recipient or transfers to show DN. >>>>>>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-095 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------ From the Policy ------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5.2.3 Conditions on the recipient of the transfer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The conditions of the transfer defined by RIR where the >>>>>>> recipient organization holds an account, will apply to the >>>>>>> recipient of the transfer: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - For transfers from an account holder of the counterpart >>>>>>> RIR(*) to APNIC account holder, the conditions defined >>>>>>> in APNIC transfer policy at the time of the transfer >>>>>>> will apply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - For transfers from APNIC account holder an account >>>>>>> holder of to the counterpart RIR(*), the conditions >>>>>>> defined in the counterpart RIR's transfer policy at the >>>>>>> time of the transfer will apply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> prop-96 quickly places it back. >>>>>>> https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------ From the Policy ------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Introduction >>>>>>> ---------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a proposal to maintain the requirement for recipients of IPv4 >>>>>>> transfers to justify their need for address space beyond the current >>>>>>> allocation phase and into the final /8 phase. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Summary of the current problem >>>>>>> ---------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The current APNIC transfer policy removes the requirement to >>>>>>> demonstrate a need for transferred IPv4 addresses after the final /8 >>>>>>> phase begins. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, this removal of justification of need once APNIC enters the >>>>>>> final /8 phase will make APNIC the only RIR that does not require a >>>>>>> demonstrated need to be shown for an IPv4 transfer to be approved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If an inter-RIR transfer policy, such as prop-095, were to be approved, >>>>>>> given that any transfers would be conducted according to the transfer >>>>>>> policy of the source RIR, it would disadvantage APNIC if other RIRs >>>>>>> were to be able to transfer IPv4 addresses from APNIC without requiring >>>>>>> any justification. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contrast this with transfers where APNIC is the recipient of the >>>>>>> transfer, and must follow the transfer policy of the source RIR. Since >>>>>>> all other RIRs require justification in transfers, it would be more >>>>>>> difficult to have transfers of addresses into the APNIC region than it >>>>>>> would for addresses to be transferred out of the APNIC region. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition, having no justification requirement in the final /8 phase >>>>>>> is raising concerns in some RIR regions and making them reluctant to >>>>>>> recognize any inter-RIR transfer policy with APNIC. Therefore, it is >>>>>>> possible that even if APNIC were to adopt prop-095, no other RIR may be >>>>>>> willing to engage in such inter-RIR transfers with APNIC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve(a)v4now.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey Dean, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please remind me which policy number that was... clearly I >>>>>>> missed >>>>>>> something. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Skeeve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker >>>>>>> v4Now - an eintellego Networks Business >>>>>>> skeeve(a)v4now.com ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com >>>>>>> <http://www.theispguy.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean(a)deanpemberton.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:dean@deanpemberton.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We still have DN for one reason and one reason only. >>>>>>> ARIN requires it as part of their transfer policy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We know this because the community already removed the requirement for >>>>>>> DN >>>>>>> for IPv4 addresses post exhaustion once, and then quickly had to put >>>>>>> it back >>>>>>> in because we stood to miss out on ARIN transfers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So to my mind the community has already spoken and this is what it has >>>>>>> said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "We don't want/care about DN for post exhaustion IPv4 addresses. We've >>>>>>> already voted to remove it once. We *DO* care about transfers from >>>>>>> ARIN, so >>>>>>> we put DN back. Thats the only reason we have DN." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So here you go community... am I wrong with that statement? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve(a)v4now.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dean, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am simply asking for opinions so that when/if something happens in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> other regions that the APNIC region has already discussed it, or at >>>>>>> least >>>>>>> had opening discussions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you think that we should avoid any discussion on the matter before >>>>>>> something happens and be reactionary? or seek to open a discussion >>>>>>> and get >>>>>>> the feeling from the community? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lately there has been a lot of comments on involving the community >>>>>>> more... which is what I am trying to facilitate by bringing up the >>>>>>> topic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Skeeve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker >>>>>>> v4Now - an eintellego Networks Business >>>>>>> skeeve(a)v4now.com ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com >>>>>>> <http://www.theispguy.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Dean Pemberton >>>>>>> <dean(a)deanpemberton.com> <mailto:dean@deanpemberton.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Too true Bill, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For me the trigger points for any further conversation on DN are: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ARIN changes or relaxes its policy on requiring DN for transfers. >>>>>>> *OR* >>>>>>> APNIC members decide they no longer need transfers from ARIN. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm happy to talk about one of those things (the second), the first >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> none of my business. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dean >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody(a)pch.net> >>>>>>> <mailto:woody@pch.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 18, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve(a)v4now.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ARIN, RIPE and APNIC all have demonstrated need at present. >>>>>>> RIPE and ARIN are having discussions about removing or lowering >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bar. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, RIPE is. I wouldn’t say that’s true of ARIN. I mean, there >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> always people talking about stuff, but there’s a difference >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> between people >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> talking and a policy proposal that has any support or chance of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> becoming >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> future policy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list >>>>>>> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni >>>>>>> c-talk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dean >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list >>>>>>> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni >>>>>>> c-talk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dean >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list >>>>>>> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni >>>>>>> c-talk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dean >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list >>>>>>> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni >>>>>>> c-talk >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list >>>> apnic-talk(a)lists.apnic.net >>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk >>> >> >>

1 0

Re: [sig-policy] RIPE Policy Text for Inter-RIR Transfers - 2014-05
by Randy Bush 06 Jun '14

06 Jun '14

>>> I don't agree at all. >> and you operate in the ripe region? > Why is that even relevant? because, in general, we do not tell others regions what to do. notice that john did not do so, merely asked for clarification. how well did we like it when some over-inflated arin folk came by and managed to shove transfer requiring justification down our throats? randy

2 1

APNIC 38 Policy Proposal Deadline 8 August 2014
by Masato Yamanishi 05 Jun '14

05 Jun '14

Dear Colleagues, APNIC policies are determined by an open, established, and bottom-up consensus Policy Development Process (PDP). Anybody can propose a policy change, participate in the discussion of proposed changes, and express their support or objection for any proposal. This PDP begins when somebody submits a Policy Proposal, or a problem statement to the APNIC Policy SIG Chairs. Once considered and accepted by the SIG Chairs, the proposal must be posted to Policy SIG mailing list at least four weeks before the APNIC 38 Policy SIG meeting in Brisbane, Australia on Thursday, 18 September 2014. To be considered for consensus at the APNIC 38 OPM, policy proposals must be submitted by Friday 8 August 2014. How to submit your Policy Proposal ------------------------------------------------- There are two ways to submit a policy proposal to the Policy SIG Chairs: 1. Use the online form at: http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/submit 2. Send your proposal in TEXT format to <policy(a)apnic.net>. http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/process/proposal_template.txt If you are unsure of the solution to your policy issue, whether your policy idea has merit, or if it is covered by existing policy, you are encouraged to complete only the Problem Statement part of your proposal. The community can then assist in developing the best solution. More information ------------------------- Learn more about the APNIC 38 OPM: http://conference.apnic.net/38/policy How to participate in policy discussions: http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/process/how-to-participate APNIC's PDP is explained at: http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/process View current and past policy proposals at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals We look forward to and encourage your participation in the APNIC PDP. APNIC Policy SIG Chairs Andy and Masato

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy June 2014