Re: [sig-policy] New Version of prop-103: A Final IP Address Policy Prop

  • To: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New Version of prop-103: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
  • From: Dean Pemberton <dean at deanpemberton dot com>
  • Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:36:05 +1200
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <CALS-_OpL9F9qzRs6CA-wcwu69qiM3bEDsi8Hjf3iRFs=3Qy0cQ@mail.gmail.com>
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.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: <CALS-_OpL9F9qzRs6CA-wcwu69qiM3bEDsi8Hjf3iRFs=3Qy0cQ@mail.gmail.com>
    • 
      As a strawman if some changes were made to section 4, then I think the
      intent of the proposal stands, but it gives some guidance on how the
      PDP could be changed to accomplish the intent.
      
      How about...
      
      
      4. Details
      ----------
      
      IPv4 policy proposals should be carefully examined to ensure that they
      provide a solution to a well defined problem and they address real
      needs that can not be accomplished with existing processes.
      Discussion of the problem should precede proposals for new policy to
      address the problem.
      
      The following process describes how this discussion could be included
      within the current PDP.
      
      .  A Problem Statement is posted to the Policy-SIG  list outlining a
      problem or issue with the current APNIC policies.
      .  The proposer leads conversation on the Policy-SIG list to develop
      possible solutions to this Problem Statement.
      .  At this stage the APNIC Secretariat can comment if they consider
      that the Problem Statement can be covered within current policies.
      .  When the proposer feels that they have a solution to their Problem
      Statement, they draft a policy and submit it in a similar fashion as
      occurs currently within the PDP.
      
      This will ensure that policy proposals have a clearly stated problem
      statement and that any major objections are at least voiced early in
      the process.
      
      In general, the same should hold for IPv6, although it is realized
      that, as we learn more about IPv6 use and deployment, more policy
      development may be useful.
      
      Thoughts?
      
      Regards,
      Dean
      
      
      On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
      > Dear SIG members
      >
      > Version 002 of the proposal "prop-103: A Final IP Address Policy
      > Proposal" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be
      > presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 34 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 30
      > August 2012.
      >
      > Information about this version and version 001 is available from:
      >
      >           http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-103
      >
      > You are encouraged you to express your views on the proposal:
      >
      >            - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
      >            - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
      >            - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
      >              effective?
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
      >
      > -------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > prop-103-v002: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
      >
      > -------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > Author: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
      >
      >
      > 1. Introduction
      > ---------------
      >
      > IPv4 is history, with no immediate need to add more policy.  IPv6 is
      > sufficiently plentiful that a lot of further policy making is probably
      > not needed.  So let us agree to make no more IP address policies or
      > proposals except those which are clearly needed and for which can not be
      > accomplished with current procedures.
      >
      >
      > 2. Summary
      > ----------
      >
      > The APNIC community spends time and resources proposing, discussing,
      > arguing, ... about IP address policies out of habit.  The process is
      > important in that it maintains an open policy process but often these
      > proposals are not really relevant to actually coordinating the prudent
      > and high quality operation of the internet.
      >
      >
      > 3. Situation in other RIRs
      > --------------------------
      >
      > The community spends inordinate time and resources making endless policy
      > proposals about miniscule issues and baroque corner cases.  This is a
      > waste of time and other resources.
      >
      >
      > 4. Details
      > ----------
      >
      > IPv4 policy proposals should be carefully examined to ensure that they
      > are really necessary and they address real needs that can not be
      > accomplished with existing processes.  Discussion of the problem should
      > preceed proposals for new policy to address the problem.
      >
      > In general, the same should hold for IPv6, although it is realized that,
      > as we learn more about IPv6 use and deployment, more policy development
      > may be useful.
      >
      >
      > 5. Pros/Cons
      > ------------
      >
      > Advantages:
      >
      >     - We would not have to spend time discussing things of small
      >       consequence and which do not help the customer/user in any real
      >       way.
      >
      > Disadvantages:
      >
      >     - It would impact the amateur careers of policy wannabes.  This is a
      >       feature, not a bug.
      >
      >
      > 6. Effect on APNIC
      > ------------------
      >
      > Saves money, time, and other resources such as administrative complexity
      > created by more complex but useless policies.
      >
      >
      > 7. Effect on NIRs
      > -----------------
      >
      > Saves money, time, and other resources such as administrative complexity
      > created by more complex but useless policies.
      >
      >
      > *              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,
      
      Dean