I also agree with Terry and Ji-Young.
The prop-50 doesn't justify use of transferred space using the allocation
and assignment policies and restrictions, it will conflict with the goals of
address management of Conservation and Fairness (You can see at "5 Goals of
address space management",
http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy.html ). Because prop-50
doesn't have the mechanism of the justifications and restrictions, it will
cause the backdoor of stockpile of IP address. On the other hand, APNIC
members get IP address from APNIC allocation will need to be justified, but
prop-50 doesn't need to be justified, it will cause the issue of fairness.
Best regards,
Sheng-Wei Kuo
-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Ji-Young Lee (???)
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:57 AM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
I agree with Terry
If prop-050 is implemented without any supplemental policies,
it would be very vulnerable to any attempts to stockpile ipv4 without any
actual demand and accelerate free pool runout.
regards,
ji-young
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Manderson" terry@terrym.net
To: "Sam Dickinson" sam@apnic.net
Cc: "Randy Bush" randy@psg.com; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
Sam and all,
Very helpful thanks..
So if the consensus is maintained with Prop-050 may I respectfully
recommend the EC and Secretariat to keep to a 6 month (or longer)
implementation time to allow the machine to churn through Prop-071/072
and meet up with prop-050 at implementation if possible.
I accept this appears as a slippery slope. And if prop-050 needs such
a crutch then maybe policy itself is immature, needs work and we as a
community might consider to not maintain the consensus call.
Terry
On 16/04/2009, at 12:07 PM, Sam Dickinson wrote:
Hello Terry
You are correct in remembering that the Secretariat had posted to
this list that if a proposal like prop-050 were to become policy, it
would take six months after EC to implement it. As stated in that
earlier post, that timeline could change a little once we create a
detailed implementation plan. Implementation usually takes around 3
months, but can happen sooner or later, depending on the
complexities of implementation. We have had policies implemented
within days of EC endorsement (for example, prop-041) and policies
that have taken as long as 11 months to implement (for example,
prop-007).
I hope that helps.
Regards
Sam
On 16/4/09 10:10 AM, Terry Manderson wrote:
Before I make any comments regarding the potential for a "gap" in
regulation (and people capitalising on it) between the
implementation of Prop-050 and the possible implementation of
Prop-071/072 (assuming consensus) perhaps we might consider the
timelines for the secretariat to implement and enact the policies.
From what I recall APNIC said it would take 6 months to implement
Prop-50 after EC endorsement.
I'm guessing that since Prop-071/072 are modifications to Prop-50
in re-application/allocation times (in essence) I would think that
if consensus for them was reached at APNIC28, they could be
implemented immediately after EC endorsement.
So my presumption is that due to the 6 months implementation time
of Prop-50. Prop071 and 072 could be implemented at the same time.
(*)
(*) Yes, this means that prop071/072 are in a win/loss state - if
they don't reach consensus at APNIC28 they are pretty well done for.
APNIC secretariat, can you please clarify if my reading of the
timelines is correct and provide the exact dates when items fall due?
Cheers
Terry
On 16/04/2009, at 8:43 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
FWIW, I share these concerns.
-Scott
On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
>> As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would
>> like
>> to
>> express our concern about prop-050.
> this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg?
> this
> was
> discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?
Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE
APWG
mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)
so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for
your
input.
randy
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Samantha Dickinson email: sam@apnic.net
Policy Development Manager, APNIC sip: sam@voip.apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* 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
