Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}

  • To: RAKESH MOHAN AGARWAL <ddgnt-dot at nic dot in>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
  • From: Jay Daley <jay at nzrs dot net dot nz>
  • Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:46:08 +1200
  • Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <sz15HSpcrKlM.nT54tGCJ@mail.nic.in>
  • 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: <sz15HSpcrKlM.nT54tGCJ@mail.nic.in>
    • 
      On 1/09/2011, at 1:40 PM, RAKESH MOHAN AGARWAL wrote:
      
      > My request to all expert APNIC community members ,dont be too hasty in arriving at certain conclusion.just think over the underline theme from long term perspective of APNIC.Policy perspective is always for longer period & in over all interest of all community members.Operational issues are dealt with later on.Regards R M Agarwal
      
      Most of the concerns put to you have been about the long term policy perspective and not operational issues.
      
      If you could take the time to answer the questions that have been put to you regarding prop-100 then I think we would all benefit in a greater understanding.
      
      kind regards
      Jay
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Naresh Ajwani
      > Sent:  01/09/2011, 9:18  AM
      > To: "HENDERSON MIKE, MR"
      > Cc: "
      > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
      > 
      > 
      > Dear Mike,
      > 
      >> I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
      >> like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic
      >> approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with
      >> fast developing needs for internet-connected devices.
      >> This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be
      >> incorporated into APNIC Policy.
      > 
      > 
      > First of all, it's about reserving and that too for all economies and in my understanding, it's a thought only that is giving credibility to prop-100.
      > 
      > The mandate with APNIC is of over 50 economies and shud be visible to all by such policies. 
      > 
      >> On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no objection.
      > 
      > If we are okay with it administratively and for one economy, why can't it be a policy and for all economies in AP?
      > 
      > 
      > Regards and best wishes,
      > 
      > Naresh Ajwani
      > Sent from my iPad
      > 
      > On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:47, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
      > 
      >> I was opposed to version 1 of this proposition.
      >> I am less opposed to version 2, but still do not support the
      >> proposition.
      >> 
      >> I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
      >> like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic
      >> approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with
      >> fast developing needs for internet-connected devices.
      >> This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be
      >> incorporated into APNIC Policy.
      >> 
      >> 
      >> On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an
      >> administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests
      >> were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no
      >> objection. That would, however, be an administrative decision, not a
      >> Policy directive.
      >> 
      >> I don't actually think that would be effective in anything other than
      >> the very short term, for the reasons that others have put forward on
      >> this list.
      >> For example, I believe that the APNIC staff would receive requests from
      >> Indian-based members for assignments and/or allocations specifically
      >> outside the "Indian /16", for good technical reasons.
      >> 
      >> 
      >> Regards
      >> 
      >> 
      >> Mike
      >> 
      >> 
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
      >> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton
      >> Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 10:40 a.m.
      >> To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      >> Subject: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100
      >> 
      >> 
      >> My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through
      >> the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed.
      >> 
      >> _______________________________________________________________________
      >> 
      >> prop-100: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP
      >> address blocks
      >> _______________________________________________________________________
      >> 
      >> Dear SIG members
      >> 
      >> Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage
      >> you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy
      >> SIG.
      >> 
      >> Regards,
      >> 
      >> Andy and Terence
      >> 
      >> 
      >> Proposal summary
      >> -----------------
      >> 
      >> This proposal calls for adequate IPv6 address space per economy be
      >> reserved for future allocations to organizations and stakeholders within
      >> that economy.
      >> 
      >> 
      >> Discussion statistics
      >> ----------------------
      >> 
      >> Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list:   2 August 2011
      >> Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list:   30 August 2011
      >> 
      >> Number of posts since proposal first posted:   108
      >> 
      >> Number of people participating in discussions: 34
      >> 
      >> 
      >> Summary of discussion to date
      >> ------------------------------
      >> 
      >>    - There was very little consensus on this proposal during mailing
      >>      list discussion with the majority of participants either strongly
      >>      supporting or strongly opposing the proposal. Very few if any
      >>      fell in between.
      >> 
      >>    - Many participants questioned version 1 on its technical merit.
      >> 
      >> 
      >> 
      >>          http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100
      >> 
      >> *              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
      >> The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
      >> for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
      >> necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
      >> If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or 
      >> distribute this message or the information in it.
      >> 
      >> If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
      >> the sender immediately.
      >> *              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
      > *              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
      > 
      > *              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
      
      
      -- 
      Jay Daley
      Chief Executive
      .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)
      desk: +64 4 931 6977
      mobile: +64 21 678840