I concur with Stephan.  Prop-100 is in conflict with http://www.apnic.net/policy/operational-policies-nirs/text.  Section 3.5 specifically states that the ‘confederation’ model is no longer applicable.  

 

Maybe somebody with a long memory can fill in the reasons why APNIC changed from the ‘confederation’ model?  We can then evaluate whether those reasons still hold or we should discuss reverting back to confederation.

 

There are existing NIR’s that have been operating under the current policy framework for years.  I would like to hear their opinions about the current policy framework, and if it is adequate for their economy.

 

Yi Chu

Sprint

 

From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Stephan Millet
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 4:28 AM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks

 

I concur with the additional feedback provided from the clarification and still stand opposed to this policy proposal.

 


I do not believe that any of the technical benefits claimed by this proposal will in fact be achieved through the adoption of this (or any future) proposal. I can cite examples if required, though I believe they have already been summed up through postings on this list

 

Administratively this proposal seeks to override s3, namely s3.2 of the NIR Operations Policy. http://www.apnic.net/policy/operational-policies-nirs/text If this is the ultimate intent then it should be raised in a new proposal clearly stating as much and not disguised as a technical benefits proposal.

 

Regards

 

 

--
Stephan Millet
Networking Guy at large.



This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.