[sig-policy] New version - prop-134-v002: PDP Update

[Bertrand Cherrier]

Dear Chairs,

Here is the draft email for new version of prop-134. Please review/edit
and post to mailing list soon.

Subject: prop-134-v002: PDP Update

Thanks
Sunny

-

Dear SIG members

A new version of the proposal "prop-134-v002: PDP Update" has been sent
to the Policy SIG for review.

Information about earlier versions is available from:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-134

You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:

- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?

Please find the text of the proposal below.

Kind Regards,

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


---

prop-134-v002: PDP Update

---

Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
   jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com


1. Problem statement
---
The actual PDP doesn’t support the usage of electronic means to
“measure” the consensus.
However, “Confer” is being used. This should be clarified, or otherwise
the process is not
fair (remote participants don’t know about it reading the PDP) and can
be considered a
violation of the PDP itself.

The PDP also don’t have a formal process to withdraw a proposal, and
doesn’t force the authors
to keep editing it according the community inputs, or otherwise, allow
the SIG chairs to
declared it as expired.

Finally, as editorial change, the expression “rough consensus” (RFC7282)
is used instead of
“general agreement”, so it is consistent with the actual practice.


2. Objective of policy change
---
To resolve the issues above indicated.


3. Situation in other regions
---
The PDP is different in the different RIRs.


4. Proposed policy solution
---

Actual Text
Step 2: Consensus at the OPM
Consensus is defined as “general agreement” as observed by the Chair of
the meeting. Consensus must
be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting
for the process to continue.
If there is no consensus on a proposal at either of these forums, the
SIG (either on the mailing list
or at a future OPM) will discuss whether to amend the proposal or to
withdraw it.


Proposed Text
Step 2: Consensus Determination
Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” (RFC 7282) as observed by the
Chairs.

Consensus is determined first considering the SIG mailing list, other
electronic means, and the SIG session,
and afterwards at the Member Meeting.

If there is no consensus on a proposal, the authors can decide to
withdraw it. Otherwise, the proposal will
be considered as expired by the next OPM, unless a new version is
provided, restarting the discussions with
the community.


5. Advantages / Disadvantages
---
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objectives above indicated and making sure that there is
no formal discrimination with community
members that aren’t able to travel so they know that they can
participate via the Confer or other systems
developed by the secretariat.


Disadvantages:
None foreseen.


6. Impact on resource holders
---
None.


7. References
---
http://www.lacnic.net/679/2/lacnic/policy-development-process
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710*  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] New version - prop-133-v002: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

[Bertrand Cherrier]

Dear SIG members

A new version of the proposal "prop-133-v002: Clarification on
Sub-Assignments" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

Information about earlier versions is available from:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-133

You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:

   - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
   - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
   - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more 
effective?


Please find the text of the proposal below.

Kind Regards,

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs



---

prop-133-v002: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

---

Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez
   jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com


1. Problem statement
---
Note that this proposal is ONLY relevant when end-users obtain direct
assignments from APNIC,
or when a LIR obtains, also from APNIC, and assignment for exclusive use
within its infrastructure.
Consequently, this is NOT relevant in case of LIR allocations.

The intended goal of assignments is for usage by end-users or LIRs in
their own infrastructure (servers,
equipment, interconnections, employees, guest devices, subcontractors,
only within that infrastructure),
not for sub-assignment in other networks.

The current text uses a “must” together with “documented 
purposes”. As a

consequence, if there is a request
with a documented purpose, and in the future the assigned space is used
for some other purposes, it will
violate the policy.

For example, a university may document in the request, that the assigned
addressing space will be used for
their own network devices and serves, but afterwards they also
sub-assign to the students in the campus
(still same infrastructure). This last purpose was not documented, so it
will fall out of the policy.


2. Objective of policy change
---
Clarification of the text, by rewording it.


3. Situation in other regions
---
This situation, has already been corrected in AFRINIC, ARIN, LACNIC and
RIPE.


4. Proposed policy solution
---

Actual text:
2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or
end-user, for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they
operate. Assignments must only be made for specific, documented purposes
and may not be sub-assigned.

Proposed text:
2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or
end-user, for exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate.


5. Advantages / Disadvantages
---
Advantages:
Advantages of the proposal:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making sure to match the
real situation in the market.

Disadvantages:
Disadvantages of the proposal:
None foreseen.


6. Impact on resource holders
---
Impact on resource holders:
None.


7. References
---
AFRINIC: https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2018-v6-002-d3#details

ARIN:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-5-allocation-assignment-reallocation-reassignment
and https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_15/

LACNIC:
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-7?language=en

RIPE NCC: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04*  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

Re: [sig-policy] prop-134-v001: Secretariat impact assessment

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hi Jordi,

Thanks for the new version. We've updated the proposal page. SIG Chairs 
will soon post version 2 of this proposal to the mailing list for 
community discussion.

Regards
Sunny

On 16/02/2020 12:38 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi Sunny, all,
> 
> I agree that we can improve this adding an explicit reference to the RFC7282, 
> and making clear that the policy expires if not updated by the next OPM, so 
> we don't depend on exact 6-months period, which not necessary will match from 
> meeting to meeting.
> 
> So, I think we should make a new version using the following text changes:
> 
> Previous version:
> 
> Step 2: Consensus Determination
> Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” as observed by the Chairs.
> 
> Consensus is determined first considering the SIG mailing list, other
> electronic means, and the SIG session, and afterwards at the Member Meeting.
> 
> If there is no consensus on a proposal, the authors can decide to
> withdraw it.
> 
> Otherwise, the proposal will expire in six months, unless a new version
> is provided, restarting the discussions with the community.
> 
> 
> New version:
> 
> Step 2: Consensus Determination
> Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” (RFC7282) as observed by the Chairs.
> 
> Consensus is determined first considering the SIG mailing list, other
> electronic means, and the SIG session, and afterwards at the Member Meeting.
> 
> If there is no consensus on a proposal, the authors can decide to
> withdraw it.
> 
> Otherwise, the proposal will be considered as expired by the next OPM, unless 
> a new version
> is provided, restarting the discussions with the community.
> 
> 
> Please, update the version number of this proposal with these changes, which 
> I guess clears your impact assessment as well.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>   
>   
> 
> El 14/2/20 14:47, "Srinivas Chendi"  nombre de su...@apnic.net> escribió:
> 
>  Dear SIG members,
>  
>  Here is the Secretariat impact assessment for proposal “prop-134-v001:
>  PDP Update” and the same is also published at:
>  
>   https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-134/
>  
>  Staff comments
>  --
>  
>  No foreseen change on APNIC Services procedures or systems as a result
>  of this policy proposal.
>  
>  For reference and definition of “Rough Consensus” suggest adding RFC
>  7282 to the proposed text.
>  
>  It is difficult to keep track of proposals “expire in six months” may be
>  change to “expire at the next OPM”.
>  
>  
>  Technical comments
>  --
>  
>  No comments.
>  
>  
>  Legal comments
>  --
>  
>  Given that rough consensus is defined under RFC 7282 - no further 
> comments.
>  
>  
>  Implementation
>  --
>  
>  within 3 months.
>  
>  
>  Regards
>  Sunny
>  
>  
>  On 20/01/2020 10:23 am, Bertrand Cherrier wrote:
>  > Dear SIG members
>  >
>  > The proposal "prop-134-v001: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy 
> SIG
>  > for review.
>  >
>  > (This is a new version of "prop-126" proposal abandoned after APNIC 48
>  > as it did not reach consensus at APNIC 46, APNIC 47, and APNIC 48.)
>  >
>  > It will be presented during the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 49 in
>  > Melbourne, Australia on Thursday, 20 February 2020.
>  >
>  > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
>  > before the meeting.
>  >
>  > The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
>  > important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
>  > express your views on the proposal:
>  >
>  >   * Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>  >   * Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, 
> tell
>  > the community about your situation.
>  >   * Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>  >   * Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>  >   * What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more 
> effective?
>  >
>  > Information about this proposal is available at:
>  > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-134
>  >
>  > Regards
>  >
>  > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>  > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>  >
>  > 
> 
>  >
>  > prop-134-v001: PDP Update
>  >
>  > 
> 
>  >
>  > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
>  > jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com 
>  >
>  >
>  > 1. Problem statement
>  >
>  > The actual PDP doesn’t support the usage of electronic means to
>  > “measure” the consensus.
>  > 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-133-v001: Secretariat impact assessment

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hi Jordi,

Thanks for the new version. SIG Chairs will soon post version 2 of this 
proposal to the mailing list for community discussion.

Regards
Sunny

On 16/02/2020 12:24 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi Sunny, all,
> 
> I agree that we can improve this removing the redundant text (as I've added 
> "exclusive" it is now clearly duplicating the meaning).
> 
> So, I think we should make a new version using this "shortened" text:
> 
> Actual:
> 
> 2.2.3. Assigned address space
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or
> end-user, for exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate, and may
> not be sub-assigned to other networks.
> 
> New version:
> 
> 2.2.3. Assigned address space
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or
> end-user, for exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate.
> 
> Please, update the version number of this proposal with this change, which I 
> guess it clears your impact assesment as well.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>   
>   
> 
> El 14/2/20 14:48, "Srinivas Chendi"  nombre de su...@apnic.net> escribió:
> 
>  Dear SIG members,
>  
>  Here is the Secretariat impact assessment for proposal “prop-133-v001:
>  Clarification on Sub-Assignments” and the same is also published at:
>  
>   https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-133/
>  
>  Staff comments
>  --
>  
>  This proposal appears to be straightforward. APNIC notes the expansion
>  policy text to elaborate on IPv6 assignment, and it is unlikely to
>  change current practices for evaluating IPv6 requests.
>  
>  The proposed text “and may not be sub-assigned to other networks.” is
>  redundant as assigned address space cannot be sub-assigned to other
>  networks.
>  
>  
>  Technical comments
>  --
>  
>  No comments.
>  
>  
>  Legal comments
>  --
>  
>  No comments.
>  
>  
>  Implementation
>  --
>  
>  within 3 months.
>  
>  
>  Regards
>  Sunny
>  
>  
>  On 20/01/2020 10:18 am, Bertrand Cherrier wrote:
>  > Dear SIG members
>  >
>  > The proposal "prop-133-v001: Clarification on Sub-Assignments" has been
>  > sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>  >
>  > (This is a new version of "prop-124" proposal abandoned after APNIC 48
>  > as it did not reach consensus at APNIC 46, APNIC 47, and APNIC 48.)
>  >
>  > It will be presented during the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 49 in
>  > Melbourne, Australia on Thursday, 20 February 2020.
>  >
>  > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
>  > before the meeting.
>  >
>  > The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
>  > important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
>  > express your views on the proposal:
>  >
>  >   * Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>  >   * Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, 
> tell
>  > the community about your situation.
>  >   * Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>  >   * Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>  >   * What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more 
> effective?
>  >
>  > Information about this proposal is available at:
>  > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-133
>  >
>  > Regards
>  >
>  > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>  > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>  >
>  > 
> 
>  >
>  > prop-133-v001: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
>  >
>  > 
> 
>  >
>  > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez
>  > jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com 
>  >
>  >
>  > 1. Problem statement
>  >
>  > Note that this proposal is ONLY relevant when end-users obtain direct
>  > assignments from APNIC, or when a LIR obtains, also from APNIC, and
>  > assignment
>  > for exclusive use within its infrastructure.
>  > Consequently, this is NOT relevant in case of LIR allocations.
>  >
>  > The intended goal of assignments is for usage by end-users or LIRs in
>  > their own infrastructure (servers, equipment, interconnections, 
> employees,
>  > guest devices, subcontractors, only within that infrastructure),
>  > not for sub-assignment in other networks.
>  >
>  > The current text uses a “must” together with “documented purposes”. As 
> a
>  > consequence, if there is a request with a documented purpose, and in 
> the
>  > future the assigned space is used for some other purposes, it will
>  > 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-130-v002: Secretariat impact assessment

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Sunny, all,

I understand that your assesment for this proposal is only informational inputs 
and not suggesting any text changes, in the sense that:

1) The M from/to other regions will need to be verified by the counter-party 
RIR. I expect that this is part of the operational procedure, and I suggest to 
use the same as you actually have for Inter-RIR transfers, may be requiring 
slight modifications. However, I don't think it is relevant to include that in 
the policy text, and instead should be fully managed by the staff.

2) I fully understand that there are implementation implications, not only in 
APNIC systems, but also in couter-party RIRs, and the "full" implementation 
will depend on all that.

Let me know if otherwise you think "anything" should be added/clarified in the 
policy proposal.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 14/2/20 14:49, "Srinivas Chendi"  escribió:

Dear SIG members,

Here is the Secretariat impact assessment for proposal “prop-130-v002: 
Modification of transfer policies” and the same is also published at:

 https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-130/

Staff comments
--

Possible difficulties in verifying mergers, acquisition, reorganization, 
or relocation from out of APNIC region due to unfamiliarity of languages 
and legal systems.

The NRO comparative policy matrix indicates APNIC Members outside of the 
region must have network presence in the Asia Pacific. Additionally, 
some RIRs have an ‘out of region’ policy which restricts where they can 
use their resources.

Members may face difficulties updating their domain objects if there has 
been a partial IPv6 transfer where a larger block has been de-aggregated.


Technical comments
--

APNIC’s current systems are not configured to handle inter-RIR IPv6 
reverse DNS. This will need to be developed.

APNIC cannot predict when other RIRs will support IPv6 reverse DNS 
fragments incoming to their systems.


Legal comments
--

This will affect how APNIC verifies M documents. May require cross RIR 
coordination.


Implementation
--

6 months


Regards
Sunny


On 20/01/2020 10:16 am, Bertrand Cherrier wrote:
> Dear SIG members,
> 
> A new version of the proposal "prop-130: Modification of transfer 
policies"
> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
> 
> It will be presented during the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 49 in
> Melbourne,
> Australia on Thursday, 20 February 2020.
> 
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> before the meeting.
> 
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
> 
>   * Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>   * Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell
> the community about your situation.
>   * Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>   * Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>   * What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
> 
> Information about this proposal is available at:
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-130
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> 
> 
> 
> prop-130-v002: Modification of transfer policies
> 
> 
> 
> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez
> jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com 
> 
> 
> 1. Problem statement
> 
> Existing transfer policies for IPv4, IPv6 and ASN resources have some
> differences
> among what is allowed and what not, if in the case of intra-RIR and
> inter-RIR, and
> it is not clear if in case of merger and acquisitions it is referring to
> a complete
> company, part of it, or even if in case of a company reorganization or
> relocation,
> the policy is supportive to that case.
> 
> In the case of inter-RIR, the counterpart RIR need to have a reciprocal
> policy or
> procedure that allows it.
> 
> 
> 2. Objective of policy change
> 
> To ensure that the policy text is clarified, if those cases are
> supported by the
> community. It will also facilitate companies or business units, moving
> or being established
> in other regions.
> 
> 
> 3. Situation in other regions
> 
> There is a variety of support of all those cases in different regions.
 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-134-v001: Secretariat impact assessment

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Sunny, all,

I agree that we can improve this adding an explicit reference to the RFC7282, 
and making clear that the policy expires if not updated by the next OPM, so we 
don't depend on exact 6-months period, which not necessary will match from 
meeting to meeting.

So, I think we should make a new version using the following text changes:

Previous version:

Step 2: Consensus Determination
Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” as observed by the Chairs.

Consensus is determined first considering the SIG mailing list, other 
electronic means, and the SIG session, and afterwards at the Member Meeting.

If there is no consensus on a proposal, the authors can decide to
withdraw it.

Otherwise, the proposal will expire in six months, unless a new version
is provided, restarting the discussions with the community.


New version:

Step 2: Consensus Determination
Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” (RFC7282) as observed by the Chairs.

Consensus is determined first considering the SIG mailing list, other 
electronic means, and the SIG session, and afterwards at the Member Meeting.

If there is no consensus on a proposal, the authors can decide to
withdraw it.

Otherwise, the proposal will be considered as expired by the next OPM, unless a 
new version
is provided, restarting the discussions with the community.


Please, update the version number of this proposal with these changes, which I 
guess clears your impact assessment as well.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 14/2/20 14:47, "Srinivas Chendi"  escribió:

Dear SIG members,

Here is the Secretariat impact assessment for proposal “prop-134-v001: 
PDP Update” and the same is also published at:

 https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-134/

Staff comments
--

No foreseen change on APNIC Services procedures or systems as a result 
of this policy proposal.

For reference and definition of “Rough Consensus” suggest adding RFC 
7282 to the proposed text.

It is difficult to keep track of proposals “expire in six months” may be 
change to “expire at the next OPM”.


Technical comments
--

No comments.


Legal comments
--

Given that rough consensus is defined under RFC 7282 - no further comments.


Implementation
--

within 3 months.


Regards
Sunny


On 20/01/2020 10:23 am, Bertrand Cherrier wrote:
> Dear SIG members
> 
> The proposal "prop-134-v001: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy SIG 
> for review.
> 
> (This is a new version of "prop-126" proposal abandoned after APNIC 48 
> as it did not reach consensus at APNIC 46, APNIC 47, and APNIC 48.)
> 
> It will be presented during the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 49 in 
> Melbourne, Australia on Thursday, 20 February 2020.
> 
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list 
> before the meeting.
> 
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an 
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to 
> express your views on the proposal:
> 
>   * Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>   * Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell
> the community about your situation.
>   * Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>   * Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>   * What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
> 
> Information about this proposal is available at:
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-134
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> 
> 
> 
> prop-134-v001: PDP Update
> 
> 
> 
> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
> jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com 
> 
> 
> 1. Problem statement
> 
> The actual PDP doesn’t support the usage of electronic means to 
> “measure” the consensus.
> However, “Confer” is being used. This should be clarified, or otherwise 
> the process is not fair (remote participants don’t know about it reading 
> the PDP) and can be considered a violation of the PDP itself.
> 
> The PDP also don’t have a formal process to withdraw a proposal, and 
> doesn’t force the authors to keep editing it according the community 
> inputs, or otherwise, allow the SIG chairs to declared it as expired.
> 
> Finally, as editorial change, the expression “rough consensus” (RFC7282) 
> is used instead of “general agreement”, so it is consistent with the 
> actual 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-133-v001: Secretariat impact assessment

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Sunny, all,

I agree that we can improve this removing the redundant text (as I've added 
"exclusive" it is now clearly duplicating the meaning).

So, I think we should make a new version using this "shortened" text:

Actual:

2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or
end-user, for exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate, and may
not be sub-assigned to other networks.

New version:

2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or
end-user, for exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate.

Please, update the version number of this proposal with this change, which I 
guess it clears your impact assesment as well.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 14/2/20 14:48, "Srinivas Chendi"  escribió:

Dear SIG members,

Here is the Secretariat impact assessment for proposal “prop-133-v001: 
Clarification on Sub-Assignments” and the same is also published at:

 https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-133/

Staff comments
--

This proposal appears to be straightforward. APNIC notes the expansion 
policy text to elaborate on IPv6 assignment, and it is unlikely to 
change current practices for evaluating IPv6 requests.

The proposed text “and may not be sub-assigned to other networks.” is 
redundant as assigned address space cannot be sub-assigned to other 
networks.


Technical comments
--

No comments.


Legal comments
--

No comments.


Implementation
--

within 3 months.


Regards
Sunny


On 20/01/2020 10:18 am, Bertrand Cherrier wrote:
> Dear SIG members
> 
> The proposal "prop-133-v001: Clarification on Sub-Assignments" has been
> sent to the Policy SIG for review.
> 
> (This is a new version of "prop-124" proposal abandoned after APNIC 48
> as it did not reach consensus at APNIC 46, APNIC 47, and APNIC 48.)
> 
> It will be presented during the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 49 in
> Melbourne, Australia on Thursday, 20 February 2020.
> 
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> before the meeting.
> 
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
> 
>   * Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>   * Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell
> the community about your situation.
>   * Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>   * Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>   * What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
> 
> Information about this proposal is available at:
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-133
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> 
> 
> 
> prop-133-v001: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
> 
> 
> 
> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez
> jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com 
> 
> 
> 1. Problem statement
> 
> Note that this proposal is ONLY relevant when end-users obtain direct
> assignments from APNIC, or when a LIR obtains, also from APNIC, and 
> assignment
> for exclusive use within its infrastructure.
> Consequently, this is NOT relevant in case of LIR allocations.
> 
> The intended goal of assignments is for usage by end-users or LIRs in
> their own infrastructure (servers, equipment, interconnections, employees,
> guest devices, subcontractors, only within that infrastructure),
> not for sub-assignment in other networks.
> 
> The current text uses a “must” together with “documented purposes”. As a
> consequence, if there is a request with a documented purpose, and in the
> future the assigned space is used for some other purposes, it will
> violate the policy.
> 
> For example, a university may document in the request, that the assigned
> addressing space will be used for their own network devices and serves, 
but
> afterwards they also sub-assign to the students in the campus
> (still same infrastructure). This last purpose was not documented, so it
> will fall out of the policy.
> 
> 
> 2. Objective of policy change
> 
> Clarification of the text, by rewording it.
> 
> 
> 3. Situation in other regions
> 
> This situation, has already been corrected in AFRINIC,