Re: [sig-policy]Policy SIG report

  • To: Takashi Arano <arano at inetcore dot com>, Don Evans <DEvans at doc dot gov>, Kathy Smith <KSMITH@ntia.doc.gov>, james tierney <james.tierney at usdoj dot gov>, Jane Coffin <jcoffin at ntia dot doc dot gov>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy]Policy SIG report
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com>
  • Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:23:05 -0800
  • Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net, icann board address <icann-board at icann dot org>
  • 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>
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • 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> <5.0.2.7.2.20040302151445.05b60ec8@localhost>
  • Sender: sig-policy-admin@lists.apnic.net
    • 
        I understood the "process" very well and thanked  you for your
      comments in that regard. I have read the Apnic policy process document.
      
       You seem to have yet to understand that such a process is not in
      keeping with the MoU and the White paper as well as less than
      adequately transparent or representative... Nor it seems is the
      Apnic policy process document.  Hence such a process as Apnic
      is a signatory with and too ICANN, may very well be a violation
      of several US Federal statutes as well as GATT provisions...
      
      Takashi Arano wrote:
      
      > 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
      >
      > *              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