Re: [sig-policy]Policy SIG report

  • To: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy]Policy SIG report
  • From: Takashi Arano <arano at inetcore dot com>
  • Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:22:56 +0900
  • Cc: Takashi Arano <arano at inetcore dot com>, sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <40443762.C742E635 at ix dot netcom dot com>
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <5.0.2.7.2.20040301162518.05b76ec8@localhost><5.0.2.7.2.20040302112115.057d03a8@localhost><5.0.2.7.2.20040302124649.05c30b10@localhost>
  • Sender: sig-policy-admin@lists.apnic.net
    • I already answered your question.
      You totally misunderstand the process.
      Please read the APNIC policy process document first and then come back.

      Takashi Arano


      At 16:27 04/03/02, Jeff Williams wrote:
      >Takashi and all,
      >
      > I believe I have raised one very important issue in my previous two
      >responses on this thread regarding this report.
      >
      >They are again:
      >1.) This "Policy SIG report" cannot reflect any consensus of the
      >members or interested parties effected as there is not a means
      >or record of any recorded votes of ALL of the interested parties
      >or members of Apnic..
      >
      >2.) In particular as you know Takashi, Minimum allocation for
      >IPv4 allocations was hotly debated and some serious doubt remains
      >as to that proposition, namely "Prop-014IPv4 min allocation size (P)".
      >
      > So in the future, it would be wise and advantageous to be sure that
      >future reports of this nature and claims of "Consensus" be substantiated
      >as well as inclusive...
      >
      >Takashi Arano wrote:
      >
      > > Meetings and consensus in meetings are just one part of policy development
      > > process
      > > which we have already spent a lot of time to discuss and decide.
      > > According to our process, still you have 8 weeks to speak up your > opinions in ML.
      > >
      > > If you have any proposal for process improvement, please do so here.
      > > If you have any opinions for particular proposals which we discussed
      > > in the SIG, please raise your issue here. Thanks.
      > >
      > > Takashi Arano
      > >
      > > At 13:59 04/03/02, Jeff Williams wrote:
      > > >Takashi and all,
      > > >
      > > > Oh I see. So than only those that actually attended the meeting
      > > >got the opportunity to vote, is that right? If so, that again is hardly
      > > >as Measured consensus of those effected or interested parties...
      > > >
      > > >Takashi Arano wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > It was MEASURED. In the meeting, as the chair, I took a vote for every
      > > > proposal.
      > > > > 70-80% of participants agreed with each proposal and no one or just
      > > > one person
      > > > > disagreed, depending on the proposal. Then, everytime I confirmed
      > > > > that we reached consensus with those results of votes.
      > > > >
      > > > > Regards,
      > > > > Takashi Arano
      > > > >
      > > > > At 13:04 04/03/02, Jeff Williams wrote:
      > > > > >Takashi and all,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > How was a consensus determined for Prop-014IPv4 min > allocation size (P)
      > > > > >or for that matter any other "Prop" in this report?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Our members cannot seem to find any Measured Consensus
      > > > > >on any of the proposals in this report... So is this report another
      > > > > >reflection of an ICANN style "Declaired-yet-not-measured-Consensus?
      > > > > >
      > > > > >Takashi Arano wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > All,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation in the Address Policy SIG at KL.
      > > > > > > Here is a SIG report I presented in the member meeting(AMM),
      > > > > > > where all proposals were approved to move to ML discussion.
      > > > > > > Please refer to the original drafts for details of each proposals and
      > > > > > > presentations.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Regards,
      > > > > > > Takashi Arano
      > > > > > > ----
      > > > > > > Overview
      > > > > > > 11 topics in 3 sessions, including 6 proposals
      > > > > > > 98 attendance in first session, 88 in second and 73 in last
      > > > > > > Long, tough but fruitful discussions reached several rough consensus.
      > > > > > > Size and shape of room was quite appropriate for discussion
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > ----
      > > > > > > Prop-013Multiple discreet networks (P)
      > > > > > > Allows multiple APNIC accounts which have discrete networks to be
      > > > > > merged into one
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Action Item added
      > > > > > > pol-17-001: Proposer to resubmit a modified version of the proposal
      > > > > > > (prop-013-v001) to the mailing list. The rewritten proposal will
      > > > > > > define multiple discreet networks and consider the HD ratio for
      > > > > > > sub-allocating address blocks
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > ----
      > > > > > > Prop-014IPv4 min allocation size (P)
      > > > > > > Lower minimum allocation to /21 with lower eligibility criteria
      > > > > > > - immediate need of /23 and
      > > > > > > - a detailed plan for /22 in a year
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Consensus reached to proceed to AMM and ML
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Action Item added
      > > > > > > pol-17-005: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the
      > > > policy proposal
      > > > > > > process,
      > > > > > > secretariat to implement the proposal to reduce the minimum initial
      > > > > > > allocation size
      > > > > > > to /21 and to lower the criteria for an initial allocation to > demonstrate
      > > > > > > an immediate need for a /23 and use of a /22 within one year
      > > > (prop-014-v001).
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > ----
      > > > > > > Prop-015IPv6 allocation to closed network (P)
      > > > > > > Allows IPv6 allocations to closed network, if the other > criteria are met
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Consensus reached to proceed to AMM and ML
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Action Item added
      > > > > > > pol-17-003: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the
      > > > policy proposal
      > > > > > > process,
      > > > > > > APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to permit > allocation of IPv6
      > > > > > > address space to closed networks (prop-015-v001).
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > ----
      > > > > > > Prop-016IPv6 allocation to v4 network (P)
      > > > > > > - Allows IPv4 infrastructure to be considered during IPv6 > request process
      > > > > > > - Proposer clarified the current policy document and proposed > specific
      > > > > > > changes in it
      > > > > > > - Amendment proposal which requires 2 year usage plan was suggested
      > > > > > > and supported by audience
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Consensus points to proceed to AMM and ML
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Action Item added
      > > > > > > pol-17-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the
      > > > policy proposal
      > > > > > > process, Secretariat to implement the proposal > (prop-016-v001), with the
      > > > > > > modification that
      > > > > > > there is an added a requirement for LIRs to have plan to move
      > > > some of their
      > > > > > > customers from IPv4 to within two years.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > -----
      > > > > > > Prop-017Recovery of address space (P)
      > > > > > > Attempts to recover unused historical IPv4 addresses
      > > > > > > APNIC secretariat will identify and recover unused resources.
      > > > > > > If APNIC can’t contact the resource holder, resources will > be put into
      > > > > > > “unused” pool after one year.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Consensus reached to proceed to AMM and ML
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Action Item added
      > > > > > > pol-17-006: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the
      > > > policy proposal
      > > > > > > process,
      > > > > > > APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to recover unused
      > > > address space
      > > > > > > (prop-017-v001).
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > -----
      > > > > > > Informational
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > - IPv6 Guideline
      > > > > > > Action Item added
      > > > > > > pol-17-004: Secretariat to edit and publish the IPv6 guidelines
      > > > document on
      > > > > > > the sig-policy maililng list.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > - Subsequent allocation in DSL/cable guideline
      > > > > > > Action Item added
      > > > > > > pol-17-007: Secretariat to call for volunteers of new WG to > review the
      > > > > > > current DSL/cable guideline
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > - LIR IPv6 requirement
      > > > > > > - Updates of IPv6 address experiment in JP
      > > > > > > - NAT is evil
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > -----
      > > > > > > Open Action Items checked
      > > > > > > - All action items have been cleared except the following
      > > > > > > - Action add-16-008: Proposer to resubmit revised IXP proposal
      > > > > > > dealing with remaining proposal elements, such as fee waiver > (which had
      > > > > > > been withdrawn during discussion), characteristics (which became
      > > > ambiguous
      > > > > > > with withdrawal of fee portions), and combined IPv4 and IPv6 > assignments
      > > > > > > (which were not fully discussed).
      > > > > > > - Secretariat to check the proposer
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > ------
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
      > > > > > *
      > > > > > > _______________________________________________
      > > > > > > sig-policy mailing list
      > > > > > > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      > > > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
      > > > > >
      > > > > >Regards,
      > > > > >
      > > > > >--
      > > > > >Jeffrey A. Williams
      > > > > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
      > > > > >"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
      > > > > > Pierre Abelard
      > > > > >
      > > > > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
      > > > > >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
      > > > > >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
      > > > > >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
      > > > > >===============================================================
      > > > > >Updated 1/26/04
      > > > > >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
      > > > > >IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
      > > > > >E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
      > > > > > Registered Email addr with the USPS
      > > > > >Contact Number: 214-244-4827
      > > >
      > > >Regards,
      > > >
      > > >--
      > > >Jeffrey A. Williams
      > > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
      > > >"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
      > > > Pierre Abelard
      > > >
      > > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
      > > >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
      > > >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
      > > >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
      > > >===============================================================
      > > >Updated 1/26/04
      > > >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
      > > >IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
      > > >E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
      > > > Registered Email addr with the USPS
      > > >Contact Number: 214-244-4827
      >
      >Regards and thank YOU Takashi,
      >--
      >Jeffrey A. Williams
      >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
      >"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
      > Pierre Abelard
      >
      >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
      >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
      >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
      >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
      >===============================================================
      >Updated 1/26/04
      >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
      >IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
      >E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
      > Registered Email addr with the USPS
      >Contact Number: 214-244-4827