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: Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc at internode dot com dot au>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 05:08:19 +0000
Accept-language: en-GB, en-AU, en-US
Cc: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <A2D881DC-111B-4A37-B690-FD3623E58028 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> <71983130-FF82-40F9-B50F-85D09F682FCF@nzrs.net.nz> <A2D881DC-111B-4A37-B690-FD3623E58028@gmail.com>
Thread-index: AQHMaDRMQB8/4UUhF0uFl4Qxwf1aoJU3CakAgAAxy4CAAAs9gIAABakAgAAHXICAAAbyAA==
Thread-topic: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}

On 01/09/2011, at 2:13 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:

Dear Jay

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?

The proposed policy is about reservation.

None of the arguments for reservation have been at all convincing. None of them, to me, appear to be solving real problems and getting real and useful outcomes. The arguments for reservations always seem to have to appeal to thing which don't have much of a place in APNIC policy making.

I don't like the idea of IPv6 address space reservation. It seems unnecessary and will create more conflict and not usefully change the outcome overtime for the better.

I don't see how, given the size of IPv6 space and the way we're allocating it at the moment (fairly conservatively) that reservation will do anything useful other than create arguments on sig-policy for the medium and long term future. I've seen NO argument that persuasively convinces me to even consider reservation.

"To be seen fair", if not more, is equally important to be fair.

It's not at all clear to me how reservation makes things fair or even seen to be fair. I can make some quite good arguments that reservation maybe used by some groups to reduce fairness within "economies" by creating political barriers to allocation and thus stopping competition.

Here, thought is to reassure those economies who are not represented by the community members in policy making, by reserving the resource irrespective of its ample availability.

I've seen only one economy making claims similar to this.

MMC

Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani
Sent from my iPad

On Sep 1, 2011, at 9:47, Jay Daley <jay at nzrs dot net dot nz> wrote:

Hi Naresh

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

*              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

--
Matthew Moyle-Croft

Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs

Internode /Agile

Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: mmc at internode dot com dot au Web: http://www.on.net
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909