Hi Jordi,
Thanks for your contribution to this discussion so far.
As per the SIG Guidelines, Policy SIG Chair is responsible to accept or
reject a proposal and to check if it is in scope of the active SIG charter.
Please refer to the section 2.4 of SIG Guidelines
https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines/
<snip>
Accept or reject proposals for discussion at the forthcoming SIG (and
suggest an alternative forum if the topic is not relevant to that
particular SIG) [1]
[1] The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion
at the forthcoming SIG session if:
The proposal is out of scope for the SIG
The proposal is insufficiently developed to be the basis for a
useful discussion
The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority
</snip>
Regards
Sunny
On 14/05/2019 8:11 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I’m not interpreting the PDP as part of that, however, I’m fine if the
> staff confirms that it is in-scope according to their understanding.
>
> We have a recent experience of policies (resource hijacking is a policy
> violation) being declared out-of-scope in ARIN by the AC. I know the PDP
> is very different, but let’s make sure we don’t have this situation
> replicated in other APNIC.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> El 11/5/19 18:05, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com
> <mailto:owen@delong.com>> escribió:
>
>
> On May 11, 2019, at 06:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <jordi.palet@consulintel.es <mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es>> wrote:
>
> Just to make it clear. Do you believe that the PDP update is out of
> the scope?
>
> No
>
>
>
> I think that the PDP is not related to resource management, but the
> “self-management” of the way the community discusses the resource
> management and agree on the way it should be managed.
>
> The pdp is absolutely related to the management of resources in that it
> is the process by which we develop those policies.
>
>
>
> And for me as more we restrict the wording, more risks to wrongly
> get things that today are in-scope, to be left out.
>
> Agreed. However, in my view, your proposal is not less restrictive, just
> more verbose.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> El 11/5/19 1:27, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com
> <mailto:owen@delong.com>> escribió:
>
> That’s not more generic, Jordi, it’s just more words.
>
> There’s nothing within the scope of the policy manual or its updates
> that doesn’t relate to the management and use of internet address
> resources.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
> On May 10, 2019, at 09:30 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <jordi.palet@consulintel.es <mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul, all,
>
> I feel that this proposed charter is not good enough.
>
> Let me try to explain it.
>
> In RIPE we have a WG for every kind of “topic”, for example,
> addressing, abuse, routing, etc. The PDP updates are discussed
> in the “plenary” (we have recent small update and this was not
> really clear).
>
> However, in all the other regions, all the “topics” are within
> the same “unique” WG. There is an exception for ARIN (if I’m
> correct) where the PDP is not part of this “policy discussion
> group”.
>
> The proposed charter, may fail to cover for example the PDP
> update, but I feel there are many other topics that may be in
> the future in the same situation.
>
> So why not something more generic in the line of:
>
> “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to
> the management and use of Internet address resources within the
> Asia Pacific region, including any topics under the scope of the
> Policy manual or updates of it”.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> El 9/5/19 23:51, "Paul Wilson"
> <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net
> <mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net>en nombre
> depwilson@apnic.net <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net>> escribió:
>
> Dear Sumon and all,
>
> To reduce confusion over ISP/LIR/etc terminology, perhaps the
> charter could be stated more simply, along these lines:
>
> “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to
> the management and use of Internet address resources within the
> Asia Pacific region. …”
>
> My 2c, with best regards,
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg@apnic.net
> <mailto:dg@apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net <http://www.apnic.net/>@apnicdg
>
> On 9 May 2019, at 19:53, Sumon Ahmed Sabir wrote:
>
> Thank you very much Aftab and Owen for your constructive
> feedback. We will definitely consider those views.
>
> If any one has any different perspective please jump in and
> share your thoughts.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sumon
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com
> <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
>
> Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language.
>
> First, neither the current version nor the proposed
> version refer to members at all, but to the actions of
> the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one change I think should
> be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not all
> LIRs are technically ISPs, though that is certainly the
> most common case.
>
> As to your “not limited to” or “services related to
> resources”, I fail to see how that is not addressed by
> the proposed “…and related services”.
>
> I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not
> he chooses to take my NIR suggestion.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 5, 2019, at 03:21 , Aftab Siddiqui
> <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
> <mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative,
>
> <nitpik>
>
> Revised text suggest that all members/resource
> holders in APNIC are ISPs only, I would suggest to
> make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource holders
> in Asia Pacific region". Because not all members are
> resource holders.
>
> Secondly, when you start mentioning topics in the
> charter then it may create confusion moving forward
> that only these topics can be covered so how about
> adding "not limited to" or "services related to
> resources" or something like that.
>
> </nitpik>
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir
> <sasabir@gmail.com <mailto:sasabir@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Members,
>
>
>
>
>
> In the last APNIC meeting in Daejoan there was a
> discussion that there is a perception
>
> That Policy SIG discusses only about “Address
> Policy”. On the other hand there is a understanding
>
> that Policy SIG covers a wider range of registry
> issues, RPKI or any other topics that requires a
>
> procedures and rules.
>
>
>
>
>
> To avoid confusion and to bring clarity in the
> Policy Charter few proposals came in. That
> either we can change the Name of the Policy SIG
> to cover wider range or to amend the Policy-SIG
> Charter to bring clarity about the scope of
> Policy SIG.
>
>
>
>
>
> After discussions chairs feels that we can make
> some changes in the SIG Charter to bring clarity:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Current SIG Charter
> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/ says:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ‘The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies
> and procedures which relate to the management and
>
> use of Internet address resources by APNIC,
> NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia Pacific region.”
>
>
>
>
>
> And here is the possible changes proposed:
>
>
>
>
>
> “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies
> which relate to the management and use of
> Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs,
> and ISPs within the Asia Pacific region. These
> include policies for resource allocation,
> recovery and transfer, and for resource
> registration within whois, reverse DNS, RPKI and
> related services.”
>
>
>
>
>
> Please share your views, comments or suggestions
> in this regard.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> Sumon, Bertrand and Ching-Heng
>
> Chairs, Policy-SIG
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on
> resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource
> management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________ sig-policy
> mailing listsig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/>
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be
> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be
> for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and
> further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and
> will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited,
> will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
> policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive
> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is
> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If
> you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,
> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited,
> will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy