Re: [apnic-talk] Re: [APNIC Members] [apnic-announce] Call for Comments:
Hi Geoff,
You raise some good points, (which I will slightly rearrange for the
purposes of structuring this reply).
> > a) The implicit change in this policy document is the use of the
> > 'National Internet Registry' (4.1.2).
> >
> > The explanation offerred in the policy document is somewhat glib,
> > and it raises, to me at least, more questions than it answers.
>> Why is the
> > only subsequent mention of NIRs in section 7.18?
> > The document should eqither explicity wrap NIRs up with LIRs in
> > section 4, or if NIRs are significantly different from LIRs the
> > document should clearly explain such differences.
The term "NIR" was introduced to more realistically reflect the hierarchical
structure within the AP region, which includes confederations that operate
at a national level.
The term "confederation" has been problematic, hence the suggestion
for a different term. Use of the term "NIR" is new, and should be
explained to the membership; however, perhaps this policy document
is not the best forum for that explanation. We would suggest that
discussion over this be included in the summary of comments
accompanying the next draft.
The main difference between NIRs and LIRs (in terms of allocation and
assignment of address space) is that NIRs primarily allocate, LIRs primarily
assign (and this is, I think, quite clear in the definition section).
Although there is only one other explicit mention of NIRs in the document,
it must be remembered that section 7.1 requires all IRs receiving address
space to use policies consistent with those of APNIC. The policies that
follow (where relevant) specify whether they apply to 'allocations' or
'assignments' or both. The operation of section 7.1 combined with the
allocation/assignment distinction set out in the definition sections draws
in NIRs wherever the term 'allocation' is used.
We could specifically include NIRs in every section dealing with
allocations, however this could make the document considerably more
cumbersome at the micro level. Alternatively, we could exclude the concept
of NIRs from the definition, but, for the reasons expressed above, we
feel this would misrepresent the structure of the region.
> > For example: What is the process of recognition of a National
> > Internet Registry (NIR)? Can two NIRs exist in a single country?
> > Must a NIR service all entities within a country?
In the same way that recognition of an LIR is not addressed in this
document but in a separate membership agreement, the recognition of
an NIR was felt to be outside the scope of the document. To address all
these issues in the one document was felt cumbersome. They are however,
important issues for the membership to consider for future planned
documents.
> > b) 6.3 Collective responsibility
> >
> > APNIC is a self-regulatory body, where the policies developed by
> > APNIC are the outcome of both the desires of the broader
> > environment and the desires of APNIC membership. While this is
recognised
> > at the start of this document, section 6 reads more in the style of
> > APNIC telling APNIC members what they have to do. Perhaps a note
> > in 6.3 when noting collective responsibility that not only should
APNIC
> > encourage it members to develop policies and practices, but APNIC
policy
> > itself is a reflection of the policies espoused by the membership.
> >
Yes. This is a good suggestion. It is touched upon in section 1 also, but we
take your point that it could strengthened in section 6.3.
regards,
Anne
APNIC
--
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *