I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster...
"We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware.
Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present.
Owen
So it doesn't look like there is a problem here.
The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them.
Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake.
What's the problem statement here?
On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo <
george@apnic.net> wrote:
Hello Dean,
We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording.
However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy.
Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but
we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is
required.
George K
On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential
member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise
have been able to?
In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters
ever been a barrier to entry?
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com
<mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114
Regards,
Masato
-----------------------------------------------------------
prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com');>
Skeeve Stevens
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com');>
1. Problem statement
--------------------
The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility criteria
and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy
seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly
defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has
created much confusion in interpreting the policy.
As a result organizations have either provided incorrect
information
to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to
modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN
assignment by removing multi-homing requirement for the
organization.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
ARIN:
It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN
RIPE:
Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in
discussion
and the current phase ends 12 February 2015
Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03
LACNIC:
only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing
AFRINIC:
It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:
- Is planning to use it within next 6 months
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the policy
will
make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong
information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility.
Disadvantages:
No disadvantage.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
No impact on existing resource holders.
7. References
-------------
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:dean@internetnz.net.nz>
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* 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
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nzTo promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.