sig-policy February 2020

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

9 participants
15 discussions

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 29 Feb '20

29 Feb '20

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-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hi all, After my previous response to Owen, I can't find anymore any the text in the actual policy (neither guidelines) about assignments. So, I'm wondering if I was wrong, or it has been removed at some point and I don't recall it ... Could the secretariat point out to the specific text about that? If it has been removed, clearly there is a need to further update section 2.2.3 to remove that reference and avoid the mismatch. One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide stats on the number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in the last 12-15 years, in order to understand if this is a real requirement? Anyone can provide examples of why an ISP could need and assignment instead of using their own allocation? Thanks! 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.

3 4

Re: [sig-policy] prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

Thanks Bertrand, I’m fine as well with this option. Repeating it here: "Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned". Could the secretariat let us know if they still believe there is any text that is "unnecessarily duplicated" or if they could live with that? Note that it seems that emails using DMARC still get wrong to the mailing list. It will be very important that the secretariat resolves that, otherwise, some participants are not getting emails from some of us (including me). So, no wonder that they don’t respond! Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 21/2/20 15:14, "Bertrand Cherrier" <mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> escribió: Hello everyone, Thank you Jordi for this revised prop. How about this : Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned. It would be nice to have inputs from other members of the Policy SIG, especially from those who opposed this proposal. Regards, Cordialement, Bertrand Cherrier Administration Systèmes - R&D Micro Logic Systems mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc https://www.mls.nc Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) On 21 Feb 2020, at 11:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi all, As you know, we have decided to continue the discussion of this proposal in the mailing list. I've been thinking in a possible way to keep the "documented purposes" text as some indicated in the mike. So, what do you feel about these two choices: Option a) 2.2.3. Assigned address space Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate. Option b) 2.2.3. Assigned address space Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned to other networks. My personal preference, and following the staff analysis in v2, will be option a, but just in case the community prefers to re-state "and may not be sub-assigned to other networks" (I believe, and also according to the staff inputs that "exclusive" is already indicating it). Just as a reminder, the actual proposal (v2) is at: https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/prop-133-v002.txt 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. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy ********************************************** 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.

3 3

prop-130: Modification of transfer policies returned to author
by Bertrand Cherrier 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

Dear colleagues Version 2 of prop-130: Modification of transfer policies, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 49 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-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments returned to author
by Bertrand Cherrier 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

Dear colleagues, Version 2 of prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 49 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-133/ Regards Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng Policy SIG Chairs

1 0

prop-134: PDP Update withdrawn by author
by Bertrand Cherrier 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

Dear colleagues Version 2 of prop-134: PDP Update, did not reach consensus and was withdrawn by the author at the APNIC 49 Open Policy Meeting. 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-134/ We'd like to thank the author and everyone for taking the time to discuss this proposal. Regards Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng Policy SIG Chairs

1 0

prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 21 Feb '20

21 Feb '20

Hi all, As you know, we have decided to continue the discussion of this proposal in the mailing list. I've been thinking in a possible way to keep the "documented purposes" text as some indicated in the mike. So, what do you feel about these two choices: Option a) 2.2.3. Assigned address space Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate. Option b) 2.2.3. Assigned address space Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned to other networks. My personal preference, and following the staff analysis in v2, will be option a, but just in case the community prefers to re-state "and may not be sub-assigned to other networks" (I believe, and also according to the staff inputs that "exclusive" is already indicating it). Just as a reminder, the actual proposal (v2) is at: https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/prop-133-v002.txt 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.

2 1

Re: [sig-policy] prop-134-v001: Secretariat impact assessment
by Adam Gosling 18 Feb '20

18 Feb '20

Hi Jordi Sorry, but I have a very close knowledge of these documents. They are not perfect (or even good). Everybody may not always understand them, or apply them. That is why I want to make sure people understand what it is they are changing from and what they are changing to. > On 17 Feb 2020, at 1:30 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > -> The first problem we have here is that those guidelines were developed long time ago (2 decades or so), when we had many SIGs, and they were developed by the SIG chairs, not the community. The 2nd issue is that the PDP doesn’t mention anything about the guidelines. Then propose that we add a reference to the Guidelines into the PDP. We can easily reach consensus and move on. > This is not a mere editorial comment, it requires the community to accept those guidelines in a modification (thru a policy proposal) of the PDP. The third problem is that the PDP talks about “general agreement”, while the guidelines talks about “consensus”. It is a matter of English wording? I don’t know, but making it clear is good for everyone. Otherwise a newcomer will not see in the meeting that we are following our own process (because we aren’t!). > -> If I recall correctly, when asked at least one of the co-chairs about what they recognize as consensus, and I believe is the way they explain at the beginning of each Policy SIG, they use the rough consensus definition and I’m almost sure they even mention the IETF RFC. The only reference Google finds to RFC7282 on the www.apnic.net or conference.apnic.net site is your presentation https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site:www.apnic.net+rfc7282&gbv=1&sei=gTx… I checked the slides presented at the beginning of APNIC 46 and 47. These explain Consensus = ‘general agreement’ and the concept of Minor and Major Objections. They also provide the URL for the PDP and SIG Guidelines. Anybody that says APNIC Policy runs on ‘rough consensus’ has made an assumption or is using the phrase to make it easier for you to understand to idea of 'general agreement'. > > The RFC is similar, but fundamentally different. Changing this in the PDP is not just a word tweak. It would result in a different approach from the Chairs and participants. There is no concept of “Minor” and “Major” objections in RFC 7282, for example. > -> The RFC doesn’t provide the “operational” details, it is an informational document, so nothing precludes the co-chairs for their assessment to still make some “classification”, but again, the guidelines aren’t part of the PDP, unless we change it. I think they key here, and again, I believe is the understanding of the chairs, if I got it correctly, we aren’t counting hands or votes, but instead we declare consensus “when all the issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated”, which is the “short” description of the RFC. My reading of the Guidelines and the practice I have noticed from past Chairs is that Minor Objections can be 'addressed but not necessarily accommodated'. For Major Objections the guidelines say "When this happens, the Chair should encourage the proponent and the community to continue discussion and develop a more widely accepted proposal to be presented at the following meeting.” I’m not saying that it is bad to change. I am just saying that we should be aware of what change we are making. >> >> If there is no consensus on a proposal, the authors can decide to >> withdraw it. >> > > This removes discretion from the Chair (and the SIG), to abandon a proposal if an Author repeatedly persists with the same unpopular idea. I think that’s interesting and worth discussing if that’s what we want. > > > -> Which I think is wrong. It is inappropriate (in my opinion) that (and it may be again an English understanding) chairs can “abandon” on behalf of the authors (I will understand “force withdrawal”). If there is an unpopular idea, the community will not reach consensus. That’s it. Instead, chairs can decide NOT allocate time in the agenda (if other newer proposals require more time) for a proposal that is not getting consensus after several attempts, but I think it has been demonstrated many times, that ideas that doesn’t work on the first round, may work after 3-4 consecutive rounds (because the lack of inputs in the list take much much much longer), and even sometimes, authors may decide not to continue, and after some years come back and then in works. This is normal, because all this is evolving all the time. I see your point. I still disagree and would prefer the Chair’s to have some right to put a stop to unpopular ideas that are presented over and over. An earlier Chair started the three strikes rule, which seems to have become the norm. (He also used to reference the Tao of IETF in his slides) This needs to be done carefully to stick to the policy. The Policy says; "The SIG will then discuss (either on the mailing list or in the SIG) whether to pursue the proposal or withdraw it.” So the SIG as a group can abandon work on a proposal. I interpret this to mean the Chair can propose that the SIG abandon work on a proposal (and not accept it idea back until circumstances change). You are within your rights to question such a decision. The Chair(s) should be willing to hear counter arguments or there is no consensus for their decision. I would say if the Chair abandons your proposal, you should respectfully seek public support on the mailing list to demonstrate that there is no consensus for their decision. They might reconsider. All this is very difficult if people do not participate. > > -> Again, let’s see if there are further inputs and then makes sense to send a new version tomorrow maximum? However, even if I like it, the timing is not correct, as the proposal deadline is for new proposals, not for new versions, so it needs some tuning. Maybe: > “Otherwise, the proposal will be considered expired unless a new version incorporating feedback is provided before the next OPM relevant deadline, to restart the discussions” As I said, I like the idea. I don’t feel strongly about the wording. The proposal deadline is the time the Chair sets the agenda. A new version can be submitted much later and they would not know whether or not to include the proposal that had ‘expired'. > > -> I still thing the guidelines aren’t useful neither have been ever approved by the community, and instead either we make a Task Force to update the PDP and incorporate the guidelines, or to update the PDP to refer to the guidelines *and* the guidelines get also approved following the PDP. Of course they are developed by the community. I wasn’t there for the formulation of the original SIG Guidelines, but I am pretty sure that any changes made to them in the last 12 years were made by the SIG community. These are not Chair or Secretariat guidelines. They are not a numbered document, but to the best of my knowledge, the practice has been that changes are owned by the community, reach consensus in all existing SIGs, and are run through the process outlined in the Document Editorial Policy. Jordi I think the issues you are raising are really important because it demonstrates that people are not all that familiar with the documents and what they mean. There is definitely room for improvement in the documents and the processes, but getting agreement is often difficult. Adam

2 1

Criteria of resubmission the proposal
by Tsurumaki, Satoru 18 Feb '20

18 Feb '20

Dear SIG Chair and all, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum. I would like to share key feedback in our community for criteria for adopting the proposal based on a meeting we organised on 4th Feb. First of all, it should be pointed out that there is no intention to limit the proposals where the problem statement or proposal has changed. Japanese community concerned that it might repeated similar discussions if the resubmission of a proposal that was previously abandoned. My understanding is that "abandon" is a proposal that chair has decided that no further discussions will be made in the community, is this correct? If it is, I believe chair should indicate to the community why it was allowed to resubmit. And It might also need to define the criteria of resubmission. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team

3 2

New version - prop-134-v002: PDP Update
by Bertrand Cherrier 16 Feb '20

16 Feb '20

Dear Chairs, Here is the draft email for new version of prop-134. Please review/edit and post to mailing list soon. Subject: prop-134-v002: PDP Update Thanks Sunny ------------- Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal "prop-134-v002: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. Information about earlier versions is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-134 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-134-v002: PDP Update ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.palet(a)theipv6company.com 1. Problem statement ------------------------------------------------------- The actual PDP doesn’t support the usage of electronic means to “measure” the consensus. However, “Confer” is being used. This should be clarified, or otherwise the process is not fair (remote participants don’t know about it reading the PDP) and can be considered a violation of the PDP itself. The PDP also don’t have a formal process to withdraw a proposal, and doesn’t force the authors to keep editing it according the community inputs, or otherwise, allow the SIG chairs to declared it as expired. Finally, as editorial change, the expression “rough consensus” (RFC7282) is used instead of “general agreement”, so it is consistent with the actual practice. 2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------------------------------- To resolve the issues above indicated. 3. Situation in other regions ------------------------------------------------------- The PDP is different in the different RIRs. 4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------------------------------- Actual 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. Proposed Text Step 2: Consensus Determination Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” (RFC 7282) 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 be considered as expired by the next OPM, unless a new version is provided, restarting the discussions with the community. 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 so they know that they can participate via the Confer or other systems developed by the secretariat. 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

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy February 2020