Hi all,
A short email to explain with a simple example what the actual policy avoids
and what I’m trying to solve.
If you’re a university or enterprise having a Provider Independent assignment
from APNIC, and then a visitor or employee or student, etc., is willing to use
the WiFi, the ex
Hi all,
I will like to provide some background, in case you’ve not read the complete
proposal, about the intend.
Actual PDP in APNIC only rely in looking into the consensus among the
participants of the meeting. The SIG policy list is only considered as a way to
“cancel” that.
The SI
Hi all,
Regarding this policy proposal
(https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-124).
I will like to understand if everybody got the issue.
This problem is basically the same in all the 5 RIRs and I proposed the same
text to all (in some cases got simplified).
The pr
Hi Satoru,
Thanks for commenting the proposal.
I realized that there is a mistake, because in step 1, the first sentence talks
about 1 week, while the second still is 4 weeks.
So, the typo is in the 2nd part.
It should be:
A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG ma
t?
I think that there are not.
Regards,
Hiroki
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Date: Thu Aug 16 2018 21:51:25 GMT+0900
> Hi Satoru,
>
> Thanks for commenting the proposal.
>
process
to confirm consensus at AMM.
Regards,
Hiroki
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Date: Fri Aug 17 2018 11:48:13 GMT+0900
> Hi Hiroki,
>
> Thanks for reading the proposal and providing inputs!
Hi Satoru,
Thanks for commenting on this.
The current proposal text has not examples, I think it is quite neutral in this
aspect:
Providing addressing space to third party devices including addresses for
point-to-point links and/or non-permanently providing addressing space to third
Hi Satoru, all,
Thanks again for your contribution.
There are many ways to protect a whois “email” from spam. For example, you can
request a manual intervention to actually “see” the email.
I think this is an operational issue outside of the scope of the PDP, and
should be sorted out
Hi again Satoru, all,
Answers below, in-line, and thank again for your contribution.
Regards,
Jordi
De: en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki
Fecha: martes, 11 de septiembre de 2018, 14:04
Para: SIG policy
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update
Dear Colleagues,
I a
sure that ISPs, typically offering broadband services, aren’t
end-users, as they should be LIRs.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Owen DeLong
Fecha: martes, 11 de septiembre de 2018, 15:29
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC: Satoru Tsurumaki , SIG policy
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4
PALET MARTINEZ
CC: Satoru Tsurumaki , SIG policy
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4
Rather than explain each part of your text, I think it would be more useful if
you explained where my text doesn’t convey the same intent.
Owen
On Sep 10, 2018, at 22:16 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Prop124 version 4 (Owen DeLong)
--
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 16:45:07 -0700
From: Owen DeLong
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Cc: SIG policy
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain;
Hi all,
As introduced in the meeting, here is the definition for consensus that I've
compiled for the PDP update in LACNIC last May.
2. Definition of ‘Consensus’
Achieving ‘consensus’ does not mean that proposals are voted for and against,
nor that the number of ‘yes's’, ‘no's’ and ‘abstention
Hi all,
I think the clearest message form the SIG meeting today is that we must keep
the 4 weeks period for the submission before the meeting.
I will like to know if you will agree with something mid-term in between 1 week
and 4 weeks. Does the community think that 2 or 3 weeks may be sufficien
HI Aftab,
Thanks for providing inputs!
My reading of the actual policy is that it actually enforces the multihoming
“in a reasonable future”.
An organization will also be eligible if it can demonstrate that it will
meet the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably
sho
Dear Satoru, all,
First of all, thanks a lot for your inputs!
Let me try to clarify this.
The text of the problem statement has been the same (maybe minor variations)
across the 4 previous versions, so it is difficult to understand what is not
clear now, which can have been addressed
Hi Satoru, and again thanks a lot for the inputs,
Let me try to explain this.
The PDP is by definition a community matter.
The AMM is a smaller subset than the community, which in turn is represented by
the EC.
In a bottom-up approach, it doesn’t make sense that a decision taken by
Hi again Satoru, and once more many thanks for the inputs,
If we keep “it holds previously-allocated provider independent address space”,
then it means an organization, for example, deploying only IPv6, will not be
able to get an ASN.
Or even an organization willing to get IPv4, can’t get
ernes, 22 de febrero de 2019, 19:00
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC: Satoru Tsurumaki , Policy SIG
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN
On Feb 21, 2019, at 22:20 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
wrote:
Hi again Satoru, and once more many thanks for the i
mentioned.
Owen
On Feb 21, 2019, at 21:46 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
wrote:
Dear Satoru, all,
First of all, thanks a lot for your inputs!
Let me try to clarify this.
The text of the problem statement has been the same (maybe minor variations)
across the 4 previous versions, s
Hi Aftab,
We are dealing with similar problems also in other regions, so regardless if
this has been visible or not for the secretariat, the problem exists.
As explained in the problem statement, the actual text (I’m going to speak in a
generic way for all the cases, IPv4, IPv6 and ASN),
Hi Sumon,
I’m sure I’ve responded.
I just looked at the email archive, just in case, and my response is there:
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2019/03/msg3.html
Regards,
Jordi
De: en nombre de Sumon Ahmed Sabir
Fecha: martes, 19 de mar
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 real
ts 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 eve
very different, but let’s make sure we don’t have this situation replicated in
other APNIC.
Regards,
Jordi
El 11/5/19 18:05, "Owen DeLong" escribió:
On May 11, 2019, at 06:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
wrote:
Just to make it clear. Do you believe that the PDP update is
cope for the SIG
> The proposal is insufficiently developed to be the basis for a
> useful discussion
> The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority
>
>
> Regards
> Sunny
>
>> On 14/05/2019 8
a
useful discussion
The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority
Regards
Sunny
On 14/05/2019 8:11 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I’m not interpreting the PDP as part of that, however, I’m fine if the
> staff confirms that it is in-scope according to their understandi
en filled by topics of greater priority
Regards
Sunny
On 14/05/2019 8:11 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I’m not interpreting the PDP as part of that, however, I’m fine if the
> staff confirms that it is in-scope according to their understanding.
>
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
Hi Javed,
I think you’re getting something wrong.
Policies aren’t there so APNIC can verify “everything” to “every” member. This
will be impossible.
Policies are there so everybody know the rules, and try their best to avoid
breaking them.
Policies are there to avoid bad-intention
Hi Owen, all,
Sorry the late answer … been too busy the last weeks.
Responses below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 27/8/19 8:05, "Owen DeLong" escribió:
On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:19 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
wrote:
Hi Javed,
I think you’
Hi Javed,
I actually think this is in the other way around.
I believe you’re confusing different terms, clearly described in the
definitions section of the policy manual:
2.2.1. Delegated address space
APNIC "delegates" addresses to its account holders. These delegations can be
for u
Hi Satoru,
Thanks for investing time in the several policy proposals.
I think that the last couple of emails could help all you to better understand
the problem.
Clearly, if different people read the current policy text in a different way,
it will be much better to find a way so we have a sing
Hi Owen,
El 27/8/19 8:15, "Owen DeLong" escribió:
On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
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 th
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Monday, 26 August 2019 6:05 PM
To: Policy SIG
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update
Hi Javed,
I don’t agree, let me explain why.
The current process only talks about the meeting a
Dear Saturo,
See responses below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2/9/19 17:37, "Satoru Tsurumaki" escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.
I would like to share a feedback in our community for prop-126, based
Hi Satoru, all,
There are two points here:
1) Provide clarity about Inter/Intra-RIR. It is not clear in actual policy if
it is referring only to Intra-RIR M&A or also Inter-RIR. It seems clear that
because there is a policy for Inter-RIR transfers, the M&As should also support
Inter-RIR.
2) T
Hi Hiroki, all,
Thanks for your inputs, allow me to clarify below, in-line.
El 6/9/19 16:25, "Hiroki Kawabata" escribió:
Hi all,
About the part of IPv6, we oppose this. other parts are neutral.
We have to make efforts to aggrigate IPv6 routes and to maintain sparse
al
Hi Satoru, all,
I understand your point. I'm happy to remove the text "BCOP RIPE690 Section
4.2, provides guidelines about this.". It was only a reference and mentioning
it in the policy proposal introduction (which is not part of the policy text)
is enought.
So I'm going to send an updated ve
Hi Hiroki,
Just sent a response to this in the previous email.
Note this is only a minor editorial change in the policy proposal, the rest of
the text is much more relevant than just this detail.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 6/9/19 15:45, "Hiroki Kawabata" escribió:
Hi all,
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 E
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
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: Pol
No issue !
Thanks a lot!
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 18/9/19 1:58, "Srinivas Chendi" escribió:
Hi Jordi,
Apologies for the error. This is now corrected and published.
Regards
Sunny
On 12/09/2019 3:43 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I wonder if the policy mailing is appropriate for CfP and if there is an AUP
that clearly indicate that.
We receive frequent CfP in this list, which doesn't happen in other RIRs and I
guess the people sending them (which from time to time I recall is the same
people), should be warned and if th
-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
>
> prop-133-v001: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
>
>
>
>
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
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-130
>
> Regards
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
>
> prop-130-v002: Modifica
lly “clarify” Sections 8.4,
11.0, and 13.3 to explicitly say "APNIC will only recognize the intra-RIR
transfer of…."
Regards,
Adam
On 16 Feb 2020, at 11:55 am, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
I understand that your assesment for this proposal is only informational
-
prop-133-v001: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
--------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez
jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com <mailto:jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com>
1. Problem statement
Note that this proposa
Hi Adam,
By the way, thanks a lot for all the inputs, just sorry that we only get them
from one person and they are so late. If we can get discussions more time ahead
the meetings, we can get much better text, for sure!
Below, in-line.
El 17/2/20 11:55, "Adam Gosling" escribió:
H
Hi Sumon, Satoru-San, all,
Let me also provide my point of view on this:
If you look at the videos of the previous presentations, there were some people
in support of those policies. In fact, I used the videos and all the inputs (as
in the list, unfortunatelly, basically there were only input
0, at 1:30 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
wrote:
Hi Adam,
-> The first problem we have here is that those guidelines were developed long
time ago (2 decades or so), when we had many SIGs, and they were developed by
the SIG chairs, not the community. The 2nd issue is that the PDP doesn’t
mentio
ages 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
> >
> &
l 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
>
> _
Hi again ... see below ...
El 17/2/20 15:28, "Tsurumaki, Satoru" escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-134,
based on a meeting we organised on 4th Feb to discuss th
Hi all,
As you know, we have decided to continue the discussion of this proposal in the
mailing list.
I've been thinking in a possible way to keep the "documented purposes" text as
some indicated in the mike.
So, what do you feel about these two choices:
Option a)
2.2.3. Assigned address spac
7 76 (58F/min)
On 21 Feb 2020, at 11:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi all,
As you know, we have decided to continue the discussion of this proposal in the
mailing list.
I've been thinking in a possible way to keep the "documented purposes" text as
some indicated in the mike.
On Feb 20, 2020, at 20:20 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
wrote:
Thanks Bertrand,
I’m fine as well with this option. Repeating it here:
"Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or
end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the
infr
Hi all,
After my previous response to Owen, I can't find anymore any the text in the
actual policy (neither guidelines) about assignments. So, I'm wondering if I
was wrong, or it has been removed at some point and I don't recall it ... Could
the secretariat point out to the specific text about
from my mobile.
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2020 1:20:59 PM
To: mailman_SIG-policy
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
Hi all,
After my previous response to Owen, I can't
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-appr
xperience at that time. Do we have a case for that? In other RIRs, this has
been already removed.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 24/2/20 4:39, "Srinivas Chendi" escribió:
Hello Jordi,
On 22/02/2020 2:20 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
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 in
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:
>> H
Hi all,
I just saw the video (not able to attend on-line to all the sessions because a
very different time zone all the week), of the Policy SIG session today, and
specially the "PDP and SIG Guidelines Review Report".
I've seen also the diff of both documents.
I feel somehow "guilty" about thi
Hi George, all,
I just looked at the presentation that you have done earlier today and have
some inputs about possible ways to improve it.
1. Slides 9-10
1.1. About receiving spam
The abuse mailbox should receive *all* the emails to be able to receive abuse
reports about spam. If you filter ema
Internet Resource Analyst/Policy Support, APNIC
e: god...@apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3188
f: +61 7 3858 3199
www.apnic.net
___
Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/
On 10/9/20, 5:57 pm, "sig-p
Could a track of changes be provided to simplify the review?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 16/11/20 2:44, "Bertrand Cherrier" escribió:
Hello everybody !
Last year at APNIC 48 a discussion started about reviewing the SIG
Guidelines.
It is important to make documents match
Hi Sunny, all,
I've several points in addition to my document comments. I can't use the
comments platform, which by the way, is absolutely unpractical (not to say
something really more negative), because a) you need to be on-line, which may
not be the case, b) you don't create a public discussi
Hi Sunny, all,
I fully understand the difficulties that you mention, but those difficulties,
to me look like the same as per existing policy.
Any transfer requires checking documents, which may be in different languages.
Any transfer requires coordination among NIRs or RIRs, etc.
So, I do not
Hi Adam,
I don't have the need to "disguise" any policy proposal. I'm a very honest and
transparent person, pity that you didn't noticed it, and if I believe that IPv6
transfers outside of M&A's are required, I will submit that policy in an open
and transparent manner.
I've you believe that I'
Hi,
It will be possible to understand what issues the participants have discussed
about prop-130?
By the way, I think it will be much more efficient if instead of reading a
policy proposal on behalf the author (and without him knowing it), an
opportunity to the author to participate is provide
arent in your proposal.
If the community demonstrates that it accepts this cost / benefit
trade-off, I’ll happily support the proposal.
Regards,
Adam
> On 1 Mar 2021, at 9:09 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
wrote:
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> I don't have
Hi all,
Today, during the APNIC51 meeting, in the Global Reports session
(https://2021.apricot.net/program/schedule-conference/#/day/10/apnic-global-reports),
as usual, there was a presentation from every RIR, including AFRINIC.
In this presentation from AFRINIC, there have been two "imprecisio
le, even if the co-chairs have been recalled, I don’t have
any reasons to believe that they lied in sense that they didn’t sent the email.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 3/3/21 12:09, "Madhvi Gokool" escribió:
Hello Jordi /PDWG
On 03/03/2021 1:52 PM, JORDI
Hi Sunny, all,
Some of the topics that you mention, have been already resolved in other RIRs,
as there were similar issues. In fact, I authored a few policy proposals about
some of them.
In a quick review of your presentation, I see that many of them are really easy
to resolve. They are not "e
di" escribió:
Hello Jordi,
Thanks for your email. Please see the responses inline below.
On 15/03/2021 8:05 am, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi all,
I've got no inputs to this message, so I moved on and edited a draft policy
proposal, trying to avoid any "contentious" w
I meant:
in the sense that any non-used resource must be returned “voluntarily” (or
otherwise reclaimed).
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 15/3/21 10:17, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" escribió:
Hi Sunny, all,
I saw your slides, and in fact, that’s what I followed ini
as NIRs in our region, you may want to include them in your
proposed point.
Thanks
Vivek
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Date: Tuesday, 16 March 2021 at 7:08 pm
To: Vivek Nigam , Srinivas Chendi ,
sig-policy
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] proposals to resolve the "APNIC Policy Document
ation must then be returned to
APNIC or the relevant NIR.
Thanks
Vivek
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Date: Wednesday, 17 March 2021 at 6:36 pm
To: Vivek Nigam , Srinivas Chendi ,
sig-policy
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] proposals to resolve the "APNIC Policy Document
Review Report"
ation must then be returned to
APNIC or the relevant NIR.
Thanks
Vivek
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Date: Wednesday, 17 March 2021 at 6:36 pm
To: Vivek Nigam , Srinivas Chendi ,
sig-policy
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] proposals to resolve the "APNIC Policy Document
Review Report"
Hi Aftab, all,
In my opinion, the policy text + the explanations/presentation provided by the
authors + the “additional information” section of the policy proposal, was
providing the information to avoid this type of issues.
Of course, the secretariat could take different implementation a
implementation details that they can
adjust without working out a policy proposal.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 27/5/21 8:31, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" escribió:
Hi Aftab, all,
In my opinion, the policy text + the explanations/presentation provided by the
authors + the “
Hi Satoru,
I’m not sure to understand your comments.
If the exising SOR is not being use, it means that removing it will not make a
significant difference, right? So we’re not making allocations easier, we are
just trusting that if the SOR is not being used, we should adapt the policy to
Hi again …
When I wrote this proposal, I was looking for all the uses of the complete
policy manual for end-user, end-site, etc. And I was sure that I didn’t miss
anything. So, could you point to what specific sections in the policy manual
I’ve missed, so I can see if a new version can fix t
posals/prop-121
>
> Regards
>
> Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
>
>
> prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy
>
> ---
---
>
> prop-122-v001: Updating “Subsequent IPv6 allocation” policy
>
>
>
> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez
> jor
>
>
>
>
> prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy
>
>
>
> Proposer
>
> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand
> > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> >
> >
> >
>
Responder a:
Fecha: jueves, 14 de septiembre de 2017, 8:54
Para:
CC: SIG policy
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6
allocation"
Hi Jordi,
Thank you for your response.
2017-09-09 12:40 GMT+08:00 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
:
y and the planned longevity of
the allocation.”
It means that all the criteria I’m setting there, will be valid to justify your
needs.
I guest hostmasters can confirm if that’s their interpretation as well?
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Resp
Hi Koki, all,
Let me clarify it.
The actual policy for IPv4 transfers has this text at the end of 8.0:
"APNIC will maintain a public log of all transfers made under this policy."
The rest of the transfers (actual policy), is silent about that, so even if
APNIC could also include those transfers
rtrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---
prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet
ly matter whose network they are
used on? Isn’t the salient point that they are in use?
I am against this policy.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:21 AM
To: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi ; sig-policy@lists.apnic.ne
that if the declared use of allocated resources
changes fundamentally, then the resources may be subject to reclamation by
APNIC.
Is not that clear enough?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 22/8/22, 18:40, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" escribió:
Hi Mike,
ike Burns"
To: "'JORDI PALET MARTINEZ'" ; "'Srinivas (Sunny)
Chendi'" ; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Sent: 23/08/2022 3:17:12 AM
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
There are a number of problems with this po
--
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
--------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal...@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and
ount. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the
year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm
To: Andrew Yager , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Res
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12
months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy
final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
