Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update

[Amrita]

Hi 

 

Had a few comments based on today’s presentation, during the Policy SIG meeting.

 

>From what I understood making information about policy more easily and readily 
>available does not need a policy change . It  just needs to have existing 
>information more readily and easily available .

 

Secondly, as shared by many people who commented, the four week input period is 
normally sufficient for most PDPs, therefore it does not need any change . 
Policy timelines are not set for exceptional situations, but for general 
situations. If a policy discussion takes more that 4 weeks , as clarified, the 
chairs can already extend it. Therefore, no changes need to be paid in the 
policy discussion timeline.

 

However, perhaps the community may want to work on setting up  a mechanism  for 
reviewing  policies that have been implemented. 

 

Regards

 

Amrita 

 

From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 4:57 AM
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Cc: Policy SIG
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update

 

I took the liberty of reformatting the message into a consistent font and size.

 





On Sep 9, 2019, at 02:41 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ  
wrote:

 

Hi Owen,

 

 

El 27/8/19 8:15, "Owen DeLong" <  o...@delong.com> 
escribió:

 

 






On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < 
 jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote:

 

Hi Javed,

 

I don’t agree, let me explain why.

 

The current process only talks about the meeting and the chairs have clearly 
indicated that they take in consideration the list and the confer. Anyone from 
the community that dislikes a consensus/non-consensus decision, could create a 
trouble even in courts, because we are accepting consensus from sources not 
documented in the PDP. Rewording it resolves the problem.

 

Furthermore, the current process has not an “in-process” appeal procces. This 
will be ilegal in may legislations (may be only the AU applies, but considering 
that the community is “the entire Internet”, may be this may be declared 
illegal in another country where a member decides to claim for). The only way 
(actually) to appeal, will be going to the courts. We should not aim to that. 
We should have an internal way.

 

While there is no appeal process, there are sufficient iterations of approval 
and ratification in the current process that I am not convinced an appeal 
process is necessary.

 

I don’t agree on that. If today chairs decide that something is out-of-scope, 
nobody has a way to change that decision. There is no way the community will be 
able to discuss the policy proposal as a “policy proposal”, because the chairs 
don’t accept it.

 

Is there any history of the chairs determining that something was out of scope 
erroneously? To the best of my knowledge, this is not the case in the APNIC 
region.

 



In the case of ARIN, there is a kind of appeal process with is the “petition 
process”. Here we don’t have that. And is the only region where we don’t have 
that.

 

Yes, and not once has that appeal process successfully changed an AC out of 
scope ruling. As you are aware, the board upheld the AC decision and you, 
yourself eventually realized that your original proposal as written was, in 
fact, out of scope.

 



I really think is very bad not having it.

 

I remain unconvinced of its necessity. The ARIN process is different… It has 
appeals built in at every step of the PDP. ARIN operates in the US which is an 
inherently litigious environment and the appeals serve (IMHO) as a safety valve 
to avoid litigation.





I’m convinced the chairs always act on their best good faith and willingness, 
but this scheme, without a way for the community to oversee the chair’s 
decision is “per se” against the bottom-up approach.

 

Again, I disagree. If you enough of the community feels that the chairs erred 
in determining a proposal out of scope, I have no doubt that the community is 
capable of communicating this to the chairs and asking them to reconsider their 
decision. Further, I think the chairs would do so in good faith under that 
circumstance.

 



Just imagine if we have a set of chairs that aren’t really acting in good 
faith, but on personal interest (please understand is just an example, not 
saying at all it is the present case). I don’t think we even have a way to 
remove them.

 

I think this is unlikely in the APNIC region, and, if it were to happen, 
proposals being declared out of scope becomes the least or our concerns, 
frankly.

 

IIRC, there is a process for replacing the co-chairs which seems to me to be 
the better solution to this particular problem. If there is not and you wish to 
propose such a process, I might be more inclined to support something like that.





 

Calling out the (remote) possibility that some jurisdiction might have a 

Re: [sig-policy] editorial clarification on prop-131

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Sorry, confusing myself (again).

The right wording in both places of the text is:

5.2.4.3. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End Site

The problem was created when editing the text version, my "word" original 
version was ok.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 12/9/19 12:34, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"  escribió:

Hi all,

Following the suggestion in the mic during the today SIG session, in 
section 5.2.4.3. the new title is "Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end 
site", however in section 10.1.4.1. Initial assignment, is was using a 
reference to "5.2.4.3. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End-Site".

Obviously, this is an editorial mistake, and the reference should be as 
well to the new title:

"5.2.4.3. Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site"

Thanks!

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*  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
**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.






**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*  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] editorial clarification on prop-131

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi all,

Following the suggestion in the mic during the today SIG session, in section 
5.2.4.3. the new title is "Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site", 
however in section 10.1.4.1. Initial assignment, is was using a reference to 
"5.2.4.3. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End-Site".

Obviously, this is an editorial mistake, and the reference should be as well to 
the new title:

"5.2.4.3. Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site"

Thanks!

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*  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