sig-policy September 2019

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

10 participants
16 discussions

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 30 Sep '19

30 Sep '19

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

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132 new version email draft (003)
by Job Snijders 27 Sep '19

27 Sep '19

Dear all, I'm happy to see the proposal has been updated, I think it'll make discussion easier. I have some questions: 1/ How much trouble are those ~ 100 prefixes actually causing the community? I'm sure we all agree that its not fair that these entities are announcing space that wasn't assigned / allocated to them; and probably not paying the bill either... and it would be cool if those 100 prefixes can be assigned to elgible end users through the normal process; but that's not worth infinite effort. 1a/ What does APNIC currently do to 'reclaim' or 'clean up' space that APNIC would like to assign to an eligible enduser, but is currently being announce by some unrelated third party? What is today's process? 1b/ Why should it be APNIC itself that makes the ROAs for unassigned space? Perhaps the process should remain as-is: APNIC assigns space to an enduser, and the enduser themselves can create a ROA if they need to 'reclaim' the space. Using ROAs to supress rogue announcements is great, but this mechanism can be used either before and after assignment. I think the answer to this question in part will derive from how we feel about (1) and what APNIC does in (1a). 2/ Has the community considered whether this proposal should be implemented under the current 'production' APNIC TAL, or perhaps a new TAL should be instantiated (let's call it the "APNIC-UNASSIGNED TAL"). An advantage of using a separate TAL is that may address some concerns about the RIRs operational involvement in routing. Operators would need to explicitly opt-in into receiving ROAs for the unassigned/reserved space. Kind regards, Job

2 2

Policy SIG New Charter
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Dear Colleagues In APNIC 48, New Charter for Policy SIG is approved to bring clarity in the scope of Policy SIG. Policy SIG Page is also updated accordingly. https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/ Sincerely Sumon, Bertrand and Ching-Heng Policy SIG Chairs

1 0

Proposal Abandoned: prop124 - Clarification on Sub-Assignments
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Dear colleagues Policy Proposal "Prop -124: Clarification on Sub-Assignments" didn't reach consensus in APNIC 48 and earlier meetings. This proposal did not receive any support from the community. So it has been decided to abandon the proposal. Regards Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand Policy SIG Chairs

1 0

Proposal Abandoned: prop-126 - PDP Update
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Dear colleagues Policy Proposal "Prop-126: PDP Update" didn't reach consensus in APNIC 48 and earlier meetings. This proposal did not receive any support from the community. So it has been decided to abandon the proposal. Regards Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand Policy SIG Chairs

1 0

prop-130: Modification of transfer policies - returned to the author
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Dear colleagues Version 1 of prop-130: Modification of transfer policies, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 48 Open Policy Meeting. The Policy SIG Chairs returned the proposal to the author for further discussion with the community and invited the author to submit an amended version based on the community's feedback. Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to previous versions are available at: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-130/ Regards Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng Policy SIG Chairs

1 0

prop-131 final comment period
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Dear colleagues Version 2 of prop-131: Editorial changes in IPv6 Policy, reached consensus at the APNIC 48 Open Policy Meeting and later at the APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list for the final Comment Period. - Deadline for comments: 23:59 (UTC +10) Friday, 18 October 2019 Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to previous versions are available at: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-131 Regards Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand Policy SIG Chairs

1 0

prop-132 Final Comment Period
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Dear colleagues Version 3 of prop-132: RPKI ROAs for unallocated and unassigned APNIC address space (was: AS0 for Bogons), reached consensus at the APNIC 48 Open Policy Meeting and later at the APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list for the final Comment Period. - Deadline for comments: 23:59 (UTC +10) Friday, 18 October 2019 Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to previous versions are available at: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-132 Regards Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand Policy SIG Chairs

1 0

discussion about my last week presentation "Resource Hijacking is an APNIC Policy Violation"
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Hi all, As you know, last week I presented informally "Resource Hijacking is an APNIC Policy Violation". This was a policy proposal that the chairs considered out-of-scope. The authors believe this is not out-of-scope for the APNIC policies, so we agreed with the chairs to have an open discussion (not as a policy proposal right now), in the list. Please, read the attached PDF, which was our proposal, and provide your inputs. For example (but not limited to) we should answer the following questions: 1) Do you think it is acceptable that an APNIC member use, without authorization, resrouces from other members? 2) Do you think if 1 above happens, persistently or in several ocassions, as a violation of other members rights, is acceptable doing nothing? 3) Do you think the community should do something about this? Note that it is a complex problem (and document). If you don't read it all, it will not be easy to understand our intent and approach to the problem. Thanks a lot! Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 14 Sep '19

14 Sep '19

Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal "prop-126: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019. Information about earlier versions is available from: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-126/ You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-126-v004: PDP Update ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.palet(a)theipv6company.com 1. Problem Statement -------------------- With its requirement of face-to-face participation at the OPM, the current PDP might – at least partially – be the cause of the low levels of community participation in the process by using the policy mailing list. This proposal would allow an increased participation, by explicitly considering the comments in the list for the consensus determination. So, consensus would be determined balancing the mailing list and the forum, and would therefore increase community participation. Even if this is actually done by the chairs, it is not part of the actual PDP, and thus constitutes a very clear and explicit violation of the PDP and the risk is that anyone from the community could appeal any decision based on that. Finally, it completes the PDP by adding a simple mechanism for solving disagreements during an appeals phase and an improved definition of ‘consensus’, as well as a complete definition of the “consensus” and “last-call”. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- To allow that consensus is determined formally looking at the opinions of community members that are not able to travel to the meetings and facilitating a simple method for appeals. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- The PDP is different in the different RIRs. This proposal is similar to the RIPE PDP, possibly the region with the broadest participation in its policy proposal discussions, although there are certain differences such as the mandatory use of the mailing list and the meeting, which is more similar to the PDP at ARIN (another region with broad community participation). LACNIC has recently adopted a similar policy proposal with the same aims. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Current Text Step 2: Consensus at the OPM Consensus is defined as “general agreement” as observed by the Chair of the meeting. Consensus must be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting for the process to continue. If there is no consensus on a proposal at either of these forums, the SIG (either on the mailing list or at a future OPM) will discuss whether to amend the proposal or to withdraw it. New Text Step 2: Consensus Determination Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” as observed by the Chairs. Consensus is determined first considering the SIG mailing list, other electronic means, and the SIG session, and afterwards at the Member Meeting. If there is no consensus on a proposal, the authors can decide to withdraw it. Otherwise, the proposal will expire in six months, unless a new version is provided, restarting the discussions with the community. ================================================== Current Text Step 3: Discussion after the OPM Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AMM will be circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing list for a period. This is known as the “comment period”. The duration of the “comment period” will be not shorter than four weeks and not longer than eight weeks. The decision to extend more than four weeks, including the duration of the extension, will be determined at the sole discretion of the SIG Chair. New Text Step 3: Last-Call Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AMM will be circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing during four weeks. The purpose of the “last-call” is to provide the community with a brief and final opportunity to comment on the proposal, especially those who didn’t earlier. Consequently, during this period editorial comments may be submitted and, exceptionally, objections if any aspect is discovered that was not considered in the discussion prior to determining consensus. Any new objections must also be substantiated and must therefore not be based on opinions lacking a technical justification. =================================================== Current Text Step 4: Confirming consensus Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial objections raised during the “comment period”. When the “comment period” has expired, the appropriate SIG Chair (and Co-chairs) will decide whether the discussions on the mailing list represent continued. If the Chair (and Co-chairs) observe that there are no “substantial objections” to the proposed policy, consensus is confirmed and the process continues as outlined below in Step 5. If it is observed that there have been “substantial objections” raised to the proposed policy, consensus is not confirmed and the proposal will not be implemented. The SIG will then discuss (either on the mailing list or in the SIG) whether to pursue the proposal or withdraw it. New Text Step 4: Confirming consensus In a maximum of one week, after the end of the “last-call”, the Chairs will confirm whether consensus is maintained and the process continues as outlined below in Step 5. If it is observed that there have been “new substantial objections” raised to the proposed policy, consensus is not confirmed and the proposal will not be implemented. The authors can decide to withdraw it, or provide a new version, following the discussions with the community. The proposal will expire in six months, unless a new version is provided. ==================================================== Appeals process In case of disagreement during the process, any member of the community must initially bring the matter to the mailing list for consideration by the Chairs. Alternately, if any member considers that the Chairs have violated the process or erred in their judgement, they may appeal their decision through the EC, which must decide the matter within a period of four weeks. Definition of “Rough Consensus” Achieving “rough consensus” does not mean that proposals are voted for and against, nor that the number of “yes's”, “no's” and “abstentions” – or even participants – are counted, but that the proposal has been discussed not only by its author(s) but also by other members of the community, regardless of their number, and that, after a period of discussion, all critical technical objections have been resolved. In general, this might coincide with a majority of members of the community in favor of the proposal, and with those who are against the proposal basing their objections on technical reasons as opposed to “subjective” reasons. In other words, low participation or participants who disagree for reasons that are not openly explained should not be considered a lack of consensus. Objections should not be measured by their number, but instead by their nature and quality within the context of a given proposal. For example, a member of the community whose opinion is against a proposal might receive many “emails” (virtual or real) in their support, yet the chairs might consider that the opinion has already been addressed and technically refuted during the debate; in this case, the chairs would ignore those expressions of support against the proposal. For information purposes, the definition of “consensus” used by the RIRs and the IETF is actually that of “rough consensus”, which allows better clarifying the goal in this context, given that “consensus” (Latin for agreement) might be interpreted as “agreed by al”’ (unanimity). More specifically, RFC7282, explains that “Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated.” Consequently, the use of “consensus” in the PDP, must be interpreted as “rough consensus”. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objectives above indicated and making sure that there is no formal discrimination with community members that aren’t able to travel. Disadvantages: None foreseen. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None. 7. References ------------- http://www.lacnic.net/679/2/lacnic/policy-development-process https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710

5 9

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy September 2019