Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

k it is enough justification nor problem statement to propose the policy, in particular for v4. Still, against for this proposal. Regards, Matt 2017-08-23 21:01 GMT-07:00 David Hilario <d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net>: > Hi, > > > On 23 August 2017 at 10:32, Masato Yamanishi <

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block

Hi Tomohiro and All, While I support the rational of this proposal, I would like to suggest excluding M transfer from the scope and allowing it as it is. I don't think v4 space allocated from final /8 to the company which is a target of M would become a deal breaker of "real" M Rather, people who

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

Hi Proposer, I have same view as Mr. David Huberman. >From the problem statement of prop-119 which says, >1. Problem statement > > >It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary >transfer under the

Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG Chair and Co-Chair Nominations now open

serve as Chair and Co-chair for 5+years and work with this Community. Regards, Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair 2017-01-22 21:31 GMT-08:00 George Odagi <god...@apnic.net>: > Dear Community Members, > > The APNIC Secretariat is now seeking volunteers to serve as Chair and &g

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi Randy, > this makes sense for the terms of service part. Thank you for your understanding. > but what about the voter suppression issues? I'm doubt current my proposal solves all possible issues, but I have not yet find better solution. So, it is appreciated if you could more inputs as I

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Dear Jahangir, Sorry, I just aware nobody has not yet answer for your question. >Can you please clear up the question how to identify the individuals entitlement who are previously registered APNIC conference and eligible on site voting like APNIC 43 meeting ? In on-site case, if the

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)

6 PM, HENDERSON MIKE, MR < >>> michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz <mailto:michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> The objectives of this proposal are laudable, but in my view policy >>>> development for IPv4 is just ‘rearranging the d

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

ckground to this proposal is available at: >> >>https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/chair-elections >> >> Regards >> >> Adam >> >> >> --- >> >> Revising eligible voters

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Randy, >> I would like to propose aligning Chair' term with Co-Chair's term, >> which means that Chair and all Co-Chair will serve for same two years. >could make for a tough transition if both are replaced at the same time. I know that original intension of staggered term is mitigating such

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi Skeeve, Firstly, I don't think currend proposed solution is perfect, so I'm very welcome to hear your suggestions how to fix these problems. Certainly, just e-mail address is NOT enough for Confer registration, but how can we set a rule in SIG guideline? Require to identify himself/herself

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Randy and Adam, >>is there an unstated assumption that many persons could attend the >>meeting who are not registered locally or remotely? does that >>assumption hold? >The Secretariat doesn’t physically check registrations at the door to the Policy SIG sessions, I guess a bunch of

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Randy, >personally, i am not sure there is a real problem. so what if the old >guard gets thrown out and some new unknown folk get elected. it might >be a breath of fresh air. what actual damage could some fresh blood do? >some radical change in apnic across the board just might benefit the

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

> List before the conference. > > > > More background to this proposal is available at: > > > > https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/chair-elections > > > > Regards > > > > Adam > > > > > > -------

[sig-policy] Call for Presentations and Proposals for Policy SIG

Dear Colleagues, The APNIC 42 Policy SIG session and Open Policy Meeting will be held in Colombo, Sri Lanka on Wednesday, 5 October 2016. http://conference.apnic.net/42/policy If you have any ideas to improve policy, or wish to make an informational presentation about an aspect of resource

[sig-policy] Whois accuracy presentations in 2nd session

Dear colleagues, You may have already aware that we will have a couple of presentations about whois accuracy in 2nd session, 11:00-12:30AM Thu Feb 25th. While they will be presented by APNIC staffs, the problem behind them came from the Community indeed. A couple of weeks ago, one draft

[sig-policy] Proposal authors withdraw prop-115

Dear colleagues, Following the release of a new version and subsequent discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list, the authors of prop-115 have withdrawn the proposal. The authors have requested time for an informational presentation to discuss the issues identified in the prop-115 Problem

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

omewhere else is appropriate or not unless it was done in here. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair 2015-12-06 21:56 GMT+09:00 Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com>: > Hi Chair > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com> > wrote: &

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Lu and Randy, As shown in APNIC Code of Conduct, you can ask APNIC to delete comments if you want. (Skip) APNIC does not routinely monitor or moderate the discussions on the APNIC Mailing Lists. However, APNIC reserves the right to delete or redact comments that contain content that APNIC

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Lu and Owen, I'm doubt that "elsewhere" and "one of the lists" is good way to express your opinion to the Community. Please make a reference clear, if you want to continue this discussion. Masato@iPhone APNIC Policy SIG Chair > On Dec 6, 2015, at 18:22, Owen DeLong wrote: >

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Understood. I just want to make sure you have a right to ask deleting it. Masato@iPhone On Dec 6, 2015, at 21:00, Randy Bush wrote: >> As shown in APNIC Code of Conduct, you can ask APNIC to delete >> comments if you want. > > i am strongly against this. an archive should be

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

v4Now - an eintellego Networks service > ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase: > https://keybase.io/skeeve > &g

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Skeeve, As the Chair, let me warn you that calling somebody "trouble maker" on the list is a personal attack and it conflicts with APNIC Code of Conduct as shown in below. Masato@iPhone > On Dec 6, 2015, at 20:22,

[sig-policy] Deadline for new Policy Proposals

Dear Colleagues, APNIC policies are decided by community members and implemented by the APNIC staff. The Policy Development Process (PDP) is a way for anybody to propose a policy change and participate in the decisions. This begins when somebody submits a Policy Proposal to the APNIC Policy

[sig-policy] End of Comment Period for prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

Dear colleagues The four-week final comment period for the proposal 'Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria' has ended. During the comment period there was continued support for the proposal. The Chairs therefore deem that consensus has been maintained on the proposal. We formally

[sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

Dear colleagues Version 3 of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria, reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy Development Process and is being returned to

[sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

Dear colleagues Version 3 of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria, reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy Development Process and is being returned to

Re: [sig-policy] Agenda at Jakarta meeting

, Masato 2015-08-21 18:35 GMT+09:00 Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com>: > Dear SIG members, > > We have posted the agenda at Jakarta meeting on the conference web site. > <<https://conference.apnic.net/40/program#agenda/day8>> > > As you can see, we will dis

[sig-policy] New version of prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB

Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. Information about earlier versions is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115 You are encouraged to express

[sig-policy] Reminder: Policy Proposal Deadline is Friday, 31 July 2015

Dear Colleagues, This is a final reminder to submit Policy Proposals for APNIC 40 OPM in Jakarta, Indonesia. The deadline for submissions is: Friday, 31 July 2015. Only proposals submitted by this date will be considered for consensus at the Jakarta Policy SIG meeting Please note that this

[sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal “prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. Information about earlier versions is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113 You are encouraged to express your views on

[sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule

. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?) Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG? (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned) Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting

Re: [sig-policy] Requirements for Subsequent ASN Requests

Understood your point. Thx. Regards, Masato Yamanishi 2015-02-26 18:19 GMT-06:00 Owen DeLong o...@delong.com: I’m not opposed to qualifying some cases where private AS may also work, because in those cases, frankly, I think most organizations will either use a private AS rather than go

Re: [sig-policy] New Version of prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB

, Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Colleagues, And, here is prop-115. No comment has not been made for this proposal. If reached consensus, it may needs significant change for whois database. I just reviewed implementation impact assessment by the Secretariat

[sig-policy] [Gentle reminder] Policy SIG is reaching on next Thu

proposal. I will send another e-mail to each proposal to refresh your memory and make the point clear. Regards, Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] New Version of prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB

as it has wide impact. It is very appreciated if you will express your views. Regards, Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting) 2015-02-04 14:52 GMT-06:00 Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com: Dear SIG members The Problem statement Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB has

[sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space

Dear SIG members The proposal prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015. We invite you to review and

Re: [sig-policy] APNIC 39 Policy Proposal Deadline: 30 January 2015

Dear Colleagues, I have been asked from some delegates to extend the deadline since they have not yet finished their proposal. I think it is reasonable to accept it, so I would like to extend the deadline until Mon. Feb 2nd 2015. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting) Masato

[sig-policy] APNIC 39 Policy Proposal Deadline: 30 January 2015

Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder that the deadline to submit Policy Proposals for APNIC 39 is Friday, 30 January 2015 Only proposals submitted by this date will be discussed at the meeting. Regards, Masato APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting) How to submit your Policy Proposal

[sig-policy] APNIC 39 Policy Proposal Deadline: 30 January 2015

Dear Colleagues, APNIC policies are determined by an open, transparent, and bottom-up consensus-based Policy Development Process (PDP). Anybody can propose a policy change, participate in the discussion of proposed changes, and express their support or objection for any proposal. This PDP begins

[sig-policy] prop-111 abandoned at APNIC 38

Dear colleagues Version 4 of prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 38 Policy SIG and was abandoned. Proposal details This proposal would have modified the eligibility for an organization to expand an existing

Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size

Guanliang, How many allocations did we make from the old /23 blocks? Rgs, Masato Yamanishi On 14/01/27 21:20, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi David, I think that statement refers to early IPv6 allocations from the old /23 blocks. Before APNIC received the /12 allocation from