Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Owen DeLong]

That’s not more generic, Jordi, it’s just more words.

There’s nothing within the scope of the policy manual or its updates that 
doesn’t relate to the management and use of internet address resources.

Owen


> On May 10, 2019, at 09:30 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Paul, all,
>  
> I feel that this proposed charter is not good enough.
>  
> Let me try to explain it.
>  
> In RIPE we have a WG for every kind of “topic”, for example, addressing, 
> abuse, routing, etc. The PDP updates are discussed in the “plenary” (we have 
> recent small update and this was not really clear).
>  
> However, in all the other regions, all the “topics” are within the same 
> “unique” WG. There is an exception for ARIN (if I’m correct) where the PDP is 
> not part of this “policy discussion group”.
>  
> The proposed charter, may fail to cover for example the PDP update, but I 
> feel there are many other topics that may be in the future in the same 
> situation.
>  
> So why not something more generic in the line of:
> “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the management 
> and use of Internet address resources within the Asia Pacific region, 
> including any topics under the scope of the Policy manual or updates of it”.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> El 9/5/19 23:51, "Paul Wilson"   en nombre de pwil...@apnic.net 
> > escribió:
>  
> Dear Sumon and all,
> 
> To reduce confusion over ISP/LIR/etc terminology, perhaps the charter could 
> be stated more simply, along these lines:
> 
> “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the management 
> and use of Internet address resources within the Asia Pacific region. …”
> 
>  
> My 2c, with best regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC d...@apnic.net
> http://www.apnic.net  @apnicdg
> 
> On 9 May 2019, at 19:53, Sumon Ahmed Sabir wrote:
> 
>>  
>> Thank you very much Aftab and Owen for your constructive feedback. We will 
>> definitely consider those views.
>>  
>> If any one has any different perspective please jump in and share your 
>> thoughts.
>>  
>> Sincerely,
>>  
>> Sumon
>>  
>>   
>>  
>> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong > > wrote:
>>> Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language. 
>>>  
>>> First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to 
>>> members at all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one 
>>> change I think should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not 
>>> all LIRs are technically ISPs, though that is certainly the most common 
>>> case.
>>>  
>>> As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to 
>>> see how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”.
>>>  
>>> I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to take 
>>> my NIR suggestion.
>>>  
>>> Owen
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
 On May 5, 2019, at 03:21 , Aftab Siddiqui >>> > wrote:
  
 Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative, 
  
 
 Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs 
 only, I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource 
 holders in Asia Pacific region". Because not all members are resource 
 holders.
  
 Secondly, when you start mentioning topics in the charter then it may 
 create confusion moving forward that only these topics can be covered so 
 how about adding "not limited to" or "services related to resources" or 
 something like that. 
 
  
  
 Regards,
 
 Aftab A. Siddiqui
  
  
 On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir >>> > wrote:
> Dear Members,
> 
> 
> In the last APNIC meeting in Daejoan there was a discussion that there is 
> a perception 
> That Policy SIG discusses only about “Address Policy”. On the other hand 
> there is a understanding 
> that Policy SIG covers a wider range of registry issues, RPKI or any 
> other topics that requires a
> procedures and rules. 
> 
> 
> To avoid confusion and to bring clarity in the Policy Charter few 
> proposals came in. That either we can change the Name of the Policy SIG 
> to cover wider range or to amend the Policy-SIG Charter to bring clarity 
> about the scope of Policy SIG.
> 
> 
> After discussions chairs feels that we can make some changes in the SIG 
> Charter to bring clarity:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current SIG Charter https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/ 
>  says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies and procedures which 
> relate to the man

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Paul, all,

 

I feel that this proposed charter is not good enough.

 

Let me try to explain it.

 

In RIPE we have a WG for every kind of “topic”, for example, addressing, abuse, 
routing, etc. The PDP updates are discussed in the “plenary” (we have recent 
small update and this was not really clear).

 

However, in all the other regions, all the “topics” are within the same 
“unique” WG. There is an exception for ARIN (if I’m correct) where the PDP is 
not part of this “policy discussion group”.

 

The proposed charter, may fail to cover for example the PDP update, but I feel 
there are many other topics that may be in the future in the same situation.

 

So why not something more generic in the line of:

“The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the management 
and use of Internet address resources within the Asia Pacific region, including 
any topics under the scope of the Policy manual or updates of it”.


Regards,

Jordi

 

 

 

El 9/5/19 23:51, "Paul Wilson"  escribió:

 

Dear Sumon and all,

To reduce confusion over ISP/LIR/etc terminology, perhaps the charter could be 
stated more simply, along these lines:

“The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the management 
and use of Internet address resources within the Asia Pacific region. …”

 

My 2c, with best regards,

 


Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC d...@apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg

On 9 May 2019, at 19:53, Sumon Ahmed Sabir wrote:

 

Thank you very much Aftab and Owen for your constructive feedback. We will 
definitely consider those views.

 

If any one has any different perspective please jump in and share your thoughts.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sumon

 

  

 

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:

Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language. 

 

First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to members at 
all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one change I think 
should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not all LIRs are 
technically ISPs, though that is certainly the most common case.

 

As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to see 
how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”.

 

I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to take my 
NIR suggestion.

 

Owen

 



On May 5, 2019, at 03:21 , Aftab Siddiqui  wrote:

 

Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative, 

 



Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs only, 
I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource holders in Asia 
Pacific region". Because not all members are resource holders.

 

Secondly, when you start mentioning topics in the charter then it may create 
confusion moving forward that only these topics can be covered so how about 
adding "not limited to" or "services related to resources" or something like 
that. 



 

 

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui

 

 

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir  wrote:

Dear Members,



In the last APNIC meeting in Daejoan there was a discussion that there is a 
perception 

That Policy SIG discusses only about “Address Policy”. On the other hand there 
is a understanding 

that Policy SIG covers a wider range of registry issues, RPKI or any other 
topics that requires a

procedures and rules. 



To avoid confusion and to bring clarity in the Policy Charter few proposals 
came in. That either we can change the Name of the Policy SIG to cover wider 
range or to amend the Policy-SIG Charter to bring clarity about the scope of 
Policy SIG.



After discussions chairs feels that we can make some changes in the SIG Charter 
to bring clarity:





Current SIG Charter https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/ says:





‘The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies and procedures which relate to 
the management and 

use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia 
Pacific region.”



And here is the possible changes proposed:



 “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the management 
and use of Internet  address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia 
Pacific region.  These include policies for resource allocation, recovery and 
transfer, and for resource registration within whois, reverse DNS, RPKI and 
related services.”



Please share your views, comments or suggestions in this regard.





Sincerely,



Sumon, Bertrand and Ching-Heng

Chairs, Policy-SIG

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing li