Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
Because Policy is by definition mandatory and inflexible - they say in
effect "One size fits all. This is the size. Wear it. Don't complain, we
don't care: this is the Policy".
Administrative arrangements should be flexible and adaptable.
In my view - and I write policy for a living - policy should dictate
management practices as infrequently as possible. It is, I believe, far
better if policy simply puts the boundaries around the management
arrangements, and lets managers get on with managing within those
boundaries.
What at least some parts of the Indian Internet community - including
apparently the Indian Department of Telecommunications - want, is not
the same as other parts of the APNIC community want, judging from the
feedback on this Proposition. Even if the view of all Indian APNIC
members is unanimous on this, this unanimity is not shared by other
APNIC members.
Therefore, an administrative arrangement that suits the objective of
proponents on Prop-100 would appear to be a more pragmatic approach. Not
the least reason is because it appears to me quite unlikely that
consensus can be reached in favour of Prop-100 for APNIC 32.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com]
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 12:18 p.m.
To: HENDERSON MIKE, MR
Cc: <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
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
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.
