Re: [sig-policy] prop-134: PDP Update withdrawn by author
Hi Paul, Then it seems there is a misunderstanding, at least in the way I interpreted what it was said in the meeting. For me it is not just editorial changes, because there is not a link, in between the PDP and the guidelines. It is not a matter of just "adding" that link now. It is a matter of having either a guidelines developed following the PDP (bottom-up) or updating the PDP itself (by means of the PDP as well), to include the points that are needed from the guidelines. My observation in the meeting was that the guidelines were developed too long ago, by the SIG chairs, when we had many SIGs, not developed by the community, and not developed on purpose for the policy development. I think there is a substantial difference in between SIGs that don't develop policies and the one responsible for the policies. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 26/2/20 6:18, "Paul Wilson" escribió: Dear Jordi, and colleagues, This policy document review is on the Secretariat workplan for 2020, and it has been regarded as an editorial task, on an assumption that it will not affect the substance of any policies. Of course, any document changes would be subject to the usual editorial review process, and progress will be shared with the community in time for APNIC 50 where it can be discussed. There is no plan to create a taskforce, but this could certainly be decided at the next meeting, if the community agrees. All the best Paul. Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNICd...@apnic.net http://www.apnic.net@apnicdg On 25 Feb 2020, at 10:16, Srinivas Chendi wrote: > Hi Jordi, > > Thanks for your suggestion. Secretariat will consult with the APNIC > EC. > > Regards > Sunny > > On 24/02/2020 8:53 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> Hi Bertrand, all, >> >> As indicated in the meeting, the withdraw of this proposal is >> "temporary", in view of the commitment from the EC/secretariat to >> review the discrepancies in the actual PDP and SIG guidelines, >> assuming that this will be brought back to the community, following >> the bottom-up-approach, but the next meeting (maximum). >> >> I still thing that this should not be a task done only by the >> EC/secretariat but instead a Taks Force should be setup. I hope the >> EC can still consider setting up this TF. >> >> As a result of the EC review or TF review the community should be >> able to decide how to move on, including, if needed, new policy >> proposals. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> @jordipalet >> >> >> >> El 24/2/20 3:57, "Bertrand Cherrier" >> > b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> escribió: >> >> Dear colleagues >> >> Version 2 of prop-134: PDP Update, did not reach consensus and >> was >> withdrawn by the author at the APNIC 49 Open Policy Meeting. >> >> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, >> history, and >> links to previous versions are available at: >> >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-134/ >> >> We'd like to thank the author and everyone for taking the time >> to >> discuss this proposal. >> >> Regards >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng >> Policy SIG Chairs >> * 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. >> >> >> >> *
Re: [sig-policy] prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
Hi Sunny, I'm mainly interested in the assignments to ISP infrastructure, as the others are different cases, and clearly are "end-users". The point is to understand if there is really a need for ISPs to get additional assignments, why they can't do it already from their own allocation. Any indication of the tendency for those cases (assignments for ISP infrastructure), I mean if this was in an early stage and the is going up or going down? What specific text of the policy or guidelines is "being" used to do that? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 26/2/20 4:18, "Srinivas Chendi" escribió: Hi Jordi, On 24/02/2020 1:39 pm, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote: >> >> One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide stats >> on the number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in the >> last 12-15 years, in order to understand if this is a real requirement? > > Noted! Secretariat will provide the stats soon. > > Regards > Sunny To date we have delegated portable assignments to 547 ISPs. Some common reasons for this include: - Assignment to operate IXP - Historical Resource assignments - M of members who held assignments - Assignment for ISP infrastructure Regards Sunny ** 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
Re: [sig-policy] prop-134: PDP Update withdrawn by author
Dear Jordi, and colleagues, This policy document review is on the Secretariat workplan for 2020, and it has been regarded as an editorial task, on an assumption that it will not affect the substance of any policies. Of course, any document changes would be subject to the usual editorial review process, and progress will be shared with the community in time for APNIC 50 where it can be discussed. There is no plan to create a taskforce, but this could certainly be decided at the next meeting, if the community agrees. All the best Paul. Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNICd...@apnic.net http://www.apnic.net@apnicdg On 25 Feb 2020, at 10:16, Srinivas Chendi wrote: > Hi Jordi, > > Thanks for your suggestion. Secretariat will consult with the APNIC > EC. > > Regards > Sunny > > On 24/02/2020 8:53 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> Hi Bertrand, all, >> >> As indicated in the meeting, the withdraw of this proposal is >> "temporary", in view of the commitment from the EC/secretariat to >> review the discrepancies in the actual PDP and SIG guidelines, >> assuming that this will be brought back to the community, following >> the bottom-up-approach, but the next meeting (maximum). >> >> I still thing that this should not be a task done only by the >> EC/secretariat but instead a Taks Force should be setup. I hope the >> EC can still consider setting up this TF. >> >> As a result of the EC review or TF review the community should be >> able to decide how to move on, including, if needed, new policy >> proposals. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> @jordipalet >> >> >> >> El 24/2/20 3:57, "Bertrand Cherrier" >> > b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> escribió: >> >> Dear colleagues >> >> Version 2 of prop-134: PDP Update, did not reach consensus and >> was >> withdrawn by the author at the APNIC 49 Open Policy Meeting. >> >> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, >> history, and >> links to previous versions are available at: >> >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-134/ >> >> We'd like to thank the author and everyone for taking the time >> to >> discuss this proposal. >> >> Regards >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng >> Policy SIG Chairs >> * 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. >> >> >> >> * 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 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 list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
Hi Jordi, On 24/02/2020 1:39 pm, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote: >> >> One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide stats >> on the number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in the >> last 12-15 years, in order to understand if this is a real requirement? > > Noted! Secretariat will provide the stats soon. > > Regards > Sunny To date we have delegated portable assignments to 547 ISPs. Some common reasons for this include: - Assignment to operate IXP - Historical Resource assignments - M of members who held assignments - Assignment for ISP infrastructure Regards Sunny * 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
