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

  • To: Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com>
  • 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 16:17:06 +1200
  • Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <7B1B73E3-9EF3-4D58-A397-9D5B7DAA6AB9 at gmail dot 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: <4E5EB855.2080903@lpnz.org> <11Sep1.111644nzst.119193@basil.nzdf.mil.nz> <495CFA82-54D7-4512-B7EA-836D22E50797@gmail.com> <11Sep1.151616nzst.119058@basil.nzdf.mil.nz> <7B1B73E3-9EF3-4D58-A397-9D5B7DAA6AB9@gmail.com>
    • 
      On 1/09/2011, at 3:56 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
      
      > Dear Mike,
      > 
      >> 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.
      > 
      > 
      > I don't write policies for living but think policies for larger interest. In my opinion, this proposed policy shud be understood or viewed from the perspective of being seen fair to all economies. 
      
      There has still not been any explanation as to how the current allocation policies of APNIC are not fair to all economies.  Can you please explain?
      
      thanks
      Jay
      
      
      > 
      >> 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.
      > 
      > In my opinion, we shud not generalize a few objections or a few support and at least term as one block or other.
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > Regards and best wishes,
      > 
      > Naresh Ajwani
      > Sent from my iPad
      > 
      > On Sep 1, 2011, at 8:46, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
      > 
      >> Naresh,
      >> 
      >> 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.
      > *              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