[sig-policy]Re: APNIC EC endorses policy proposals from APNIC 52

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hi Aftab,

Thanks for your comment. Sorry for the late reply.

As agreed by the community, prop-138: Restricting AS-ID in ROA was implemented 
as a
guideline, not a policy. As with other active guidelines, this guideline is 
intended to be a
reference (BCP) for prefix holders to manage route, route6 and ROAs in the 
APNIC Whois
database.

Regards,
Sunny

From: Aftab Siddiqui 
Sent: Tuesday, 7 December 2021 10:32 PM
To: Srinivas Chendi 
Cc: mailman_SIG-policy 
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] APNIC EC endorses policy proposals from APNIC 52

Hi Sunny,

prop-138: Restricting AS-ID in ROA, that reached consensus at APNIC 52
to be a guideline will also be implemented along with these four
proposals.

As per this link 
here<https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fcommunity%2Fpolicy%2Fproposals%2Fprop-138%2F=04%7C01%7C%7C065447d1dfec44b01f2d08d9b97d962e%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637744771312518558%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=GjmRNalFQAVOyBN5eiwTsch4wOkBX%2Bh%2Fl0OOra83soM%3D=0>
 [1], APNIC secretariat updated the guidelines on 6th December. The text 
mentioned there does not comply with what is suggested in the prop-138. I can 
still create ROAs and route/route6 objects using the ROA interface.

[1] - 
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-138/<https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fcommunity%2Fpolicy%2Fproposals%2Fprop-138%2F=04%7C01%7C%7C065447d1dfec44b01f2d08d9b97d962e%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637744771312518558%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=GjmRNalFQAVOyBN5eiwTsch4wOkBX%2Bh%2Fl0OOra83soM%3D=0>
___
sig-policy mailing list -- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net

[sig-policy] APNIC DOCUMENT UPDATE: APNIC Policy Development Process

[Srinivas Chendi]

___

APNIC DOCUMENT UPDATE: APNIC Policy Development Process
___

Dear colleagues

The "APNIC Policy Development Process" document was released as a
draft document on 10 December 2020. The draft incorporated the
recommendations from the policy documents review as presented to the
community at APNIC 50.

The comment period for this draft has now finished and the updated
document is now officially active:

https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-development/development-process/

Regards



APNIC secretariatsecretar...@apnic.net
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)   Tel:  61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 AustraliaFax:  61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLDhttp://www.apnic.net


*  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] Reminder: APNIC 51 Call for Policy Proposals

[Srinivas Chendi]

This is a reminder that the deadline set by the Policy SIG Chair for 
proposals

to be discussed at APNIC 51 is 31 January 2021.

If you have any ideas to improve policy, or wish to make an informational
presentation about an aspect of resource management, please follow the
instructions below.

To propose a new policy or submit an informational presentation 
synopsis, please visit


https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/submit-a-policy-proposal/ 



We look forward to and encourage your participation in the APNIC 51 Open 
Policy Meeting (OPM).


    https://conference.apnic.net/51

Kind Regards,
Sunny Chendi and George Odagi
APNIC Secretariat


On 11/01/2021 2:30 pm, chku wrote:

Dear Colleagues,
Happy New Year! We trust that everyone has been keeping well and safe despite
these challenging times.
The APNIC 51 Policy SIG session and Open Policy Meeting (OPM) will be held 
online
on Wednesday, 03 March 2021. Please refer to the Program for further details.
  https://conference.apnic.net/51  

If you have any ideas to improve current policies, or propose new policy, or 
wish
to make an informational presentation about an aspect of resource management,
please follow the instructions below.
The submission deadline for APNIC 51 is Sunday, 31 January 2021.
To propose a new policy or submit an informational presentation synopsis, 
please visit
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/submit-a-policy-proposal/  

We look forward to your participation in the APNIC 51 online OPM.
Kind regards,
Bertrand and 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


*  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] Final editorial comments on draft document

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hello Jordi,

Thanks for your comments. We will get back to you soon.

Regards
Sunny

-Original Message-
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ  
Sent: Wednesday, 6 January 2021 6:02 AM
To: Srinivas Chendi ; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Final editorial comments on draft document

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 discussion on the inputs - which 
is critical for the bottom-up consensus, c) you don't know if the community is 
really following it or not, d) it doesn't follow the PDP itself!. So, I will 
summarize here my more critical inputs.

I've raised those several times, but it seems that it was ignored.

1) The actual PDP doesn't have any binding to the SIG guidelines, so *legally 
speaking* the SIG guidelines aren't applicable. Is like if tomorrow we make 
another document that we call "Policy SIG meeting guidelines" and we try to 
bypass the PDP adopting it as a separate document, not using the PDP, and/or 
there is no PDP modification to bind that document.

2) In your email you indicate that consensus has already been reached. In what 
meeting? If this is not a PDP document (SIG guidelines), is not bound to the 
PDP, etc., how come consensus has been reached? Could you provide a step by 
step consensus process for this document? Again, are we trying to bypass the 
PDP and inventing a different consensus path for *separate documents* ?

3) So clearly, I can only object to this, it is an illegal act against the 
community and every community member to try to bypass our PDP, and if this goes 
on, it will be against ICANN ICP-2 and the rules that established APNIC and we 
will need to appeal that.

4) I fully agree that the PDP needs to be improved, and that's why I've 
submitted policy proposals for that, but *we need to do it in the correct way* 
so only can be done following the PDP.

5) The PDP must be self-inclusive. It looks nice to have a "5 sentences" PDP, 
but it has been demonstrated that it is just an illusion that doesn't work. At 
a minimum, any additional document should be bound to the PDP and follow the 
same process.

6) This is the most important point, which invalidates all the process: 
According to the PDP there is NO authorization for editorial changes. So that 
means that even *editorial changes* need a complete pass thru the PDP. I'm not 
saying this is optimal, and I will prefer that the secretariat can actually do 
editorial review of documents, *however* my wish and your intent aren't part of 
the actual PDP. So, if we want to make editorial changes this way, we need 
*FIRST* to have a policy proposal adopted via the PDP to add that prerogative 
to the secretariat. By the way, how we decide what is editorial and what not? 
This must be clarified to allow that "functionality" (for example, only 
grammar, typos, etc. or also text clarification that doesn't change the 
intended original meaning).

7) Please see also my email on September 9 (2020), which I don't recall has 
been answered (clearly no answer doesn't show ANY consensus): 
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.apnic.net%2Fmailing-lists%2Fsig-policy%2Farchive%2F2020%2F09%2Fmsg2.htmldata=04%7C01%7C%7C26e6fb2fb6f441fbf4b308d8b1b4c984%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637454737957500599%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000sdata=cpcsReCu28JAG7PYjvnQbLxrRy4vxRDVgs2I83vjQK4%3Dreserved=0

Inputs to the document:

1. Introduction
This text is drastically changing the PDP it is not *editorial*. It introduces 
an *artificial link* to the SIG guidelines which, as I already mention above, 
*are not part of the PDP* and can't be, unless that document pass as a policy 
proposal via the PDP itself. Accepting that is like accepting that a government 
change a law (in a democratic country) without nobody know it, and without the 
voting in the parliament, so basically a crime.

The actual PDP only talks about meetings and lists. As I've commented other 
times, we have been using electronic means, which I agree, but changing this in 
the PDP is NOT an editorial comment. It needs to pass via the PDP. In fact, the 
demonstration of why that change is NOT an editorial comment, is that in one of 
my proposals, that change *never reached consensus*, even if the chairs asked 
just for that point (isolated from the rest of the proposal). So how come we 
can now say that it is an editorial comment and bypass the community decision 
*in the PDP* that they don't agree with that change?

Using the expression "anyone with an interest in the management and use of 
Internet number resources ..." is creating a big problem vs

[sig-policy] Acting Chair of Policy SIG

[Srinivas Chendi]

Dear Colleagues

On behalf of the APNIC Policy SIG, APNIC Secretariat, and the Community,
we would like to thank Sumon Ahmed Sabir for the work he has done as SIG
Chair and wish him well in the work he will be doing with the APNIC
Executive Council.

Bertrand Cherrier, current Co-Chair, will serve the remaining term of
Sumon Ahmed Sabir as the Acting Chair of Policy SIG until the Policy SIG
meeting at APNIC 51 in 2021.

At that time, an election will be held to select a new Policy SIG Chair.
A call for nominations for the position will be issued closer to that date.

Regards
Sunny

___

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD  |  http://www.apnic.net
___
*  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

[Srinivas Chendi]

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

Re: [sig-policy] prop-134: PDP Update withdrawn by author

[Srinivas Chendi]

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"  nombre de 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

Re: [sig-policy] prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hello Jordi,

On 22/02/2020 2:20 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 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 that? If it has 
> been removed, clearly there is a need to further update section 2.2.3 to 
> remove that reference and avoid the mismatch.

You mean section 2.2.3 text? It is not removed. You can find it in the 
current policy manual here

https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#2.2.3.-Assigned-address-space


> 
> 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

> 
> Anyone can provide examples of why an ISP could need and assignment instead 
> of using their own allocation?
> 
> 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
> 
*  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

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hi Jordi,

On 21/02/2020 3:20 pm, 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 
> infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned".
> 
> Could the secretariat let us know if they still believe there is any text 
> that is "unnecessarily duplicated" or if they could live with that?

As reported at APNIC 49 Policy SIG, Secretariat do not have any issues 
with the current policy text nor the proposed text in version 2 of prop-133.

Secretariat impact assessment comments for any new versions of this 
proposal will be shared with the community after the proposal is 
formally submitted to the Policy SIG Chairs.

> 
> Note that it seems that emails using DMARC still get wrong to the mailing 
> list. It will be very important that the secretariat resolves that, 
> otherwise, some participants are not getting emails from some of us 
> (including me). So, no wonder that they don’t respond!

Thanks for reporting this issue. Secretariat is looking into it and will 
provide an update soon.

Regards
Sunny

> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> El 21/2/20 15:14, "Bertrand Cherrier" 
>  mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> escribió:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> Thank you Jordi for this revised prop.
> How about this :
> 
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned.
> 
> It would be nice to have inputs from other members of the Policy SIG, 
> especially from those who opposed this proposal.
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> 
> Bertrand Cherrier
> Administration Systèmes - R
> Micro Logic Systems
> mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc
> https://www.mls.nc
> Tél : +687 24 99 24
> VoIP : 65 24 99 24
> SAV : +687 36 67 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.
> 
> So, what do you feel about these two choices:
> 
> Option a)
> 2.2.3. Assigned address space
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate.
> 
> Option b)
> 2.2.3. Assigned address space
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned to other networks.
> 
> My personal preference, and following the staff analysis in v2, will be 
> option a, but just in case the community prefers to re-state "and may not be 
> sub-assigned to other networks" (I believe, and also according to the staff 
> inputs that "exclusive" is already indicating it).
> 
> Just as a reminder, the actual proposal (v2) is at:
> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/prop-133-v002.txt
> 
> 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
> * 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 
> 

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
>

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 <mailto: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

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

[Srinivas Chendi]

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.
> The one more open is
> RIPE, followed by ARIN. Similar policy proposals are being submitted in
> LACNIC and AFRINIC.
> 
> 
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> 
> Actual Text
> 8.4. Mergers & acquisitions
> 
> APNIC will process and record the transfer of IPv4 resources as the
> result of merger or acquisition.
> 
> 11.0. Transfer of IPv6 resources
> 
> APNIC will only recognize the transfer or IPv6 addresses as the result
> of Merger & Acquisition activity.
> The following conditions and consequences apply.
> 
> 13.3. Mergers & acquisitions
> 
> APNIC will recognize the transfer of ASNs as the result of merger or
> acquisition.
> 
> Proposed Text
> 8.4. Mergers, acquisitions and relocations
> 
> APNIC will process and record the transfer of IPv4 resources as the
> result of a partial or complete merger,
> acquisition, reorganization or relocation, in both cases, intra-RIR and
> inter-RIR.
> 
> In the case of inter-RIR, the counterpart RIR need to have a reciprocal
> policy/procedure that allows it.
> 
> 11.0. Transfer of IPv6 resources
> 
> APNIC will only recognize the transfer or IPv6 addresses as the result
> of a partial or complete merger,
> acquisition, reorganization or relocation activity, in both cases,
> intra-RIR and inter-RIR. The following
> conditions and consequences apply.
> 
> In the case of inter-RIR, the counterpart RIR need to have a 

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

[Srinivas Chendi]

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 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” 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.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Cordialement,
> 
> 
> 
> Bertrand Cherrier
> Micro Logic Systems
> https://www.mls.nc
> Tél : +687 24 99 24
> VoIP : 65 24 99 24
> SAV : +687 36 

[sig-policy] End of Final editorial comments on draft policy document

[Srinivas Chendi]

__

End of Final editorial comments on draft policy document
___

The deadline for final editorial comments on draft policy document
closed on 03 February 2020.

Sections 5.1, 5.2.4 and 10.1.4.1 of the document "APNIC Internet Number 
Resource Policies" has been updated, to implement two policy proposals 
reaching consensus at APNIC 48, and published as APNIC-127 version 008.

  https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources

The proposals are:

 - prop-131: Editorial changes in IPv6 Policy
   https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-131/

 - prop-132: RPKI ROAs for unallocated and unassigned APNIC address
   space
   https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-132/


Kind regards,

___

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD  |  http://www.apnic.net
___
*  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 EC endorses policy proposals from APNIC 48

[Srinivas Chendi]

APNIC EC endorses policy proposals



Dear Colleagues

The APNIC EC (Executive Council) endorsed the two proposals at its meeting
on 3-4 December 2019. Minutes from this meeting will be available after
they have been adopted at the next EC meeting.

The proposals are:

   prop-131: Editorial changes in IPv6 Policy
 https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-131

   prop-132: RPKI ROAs for unallocated and unassigned APNIC address 
space
 https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-132

As prop-132 proposal is complex, requires technical changes to APNIC
registry systems and other software. Therefore, implementation of this
proposal may take three to six months rather than the usual three
months. A detailed proposed implementation plan will be presented during
Policy SIG at APNIC49.

Regards
--
___

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD  |  http://www.apnic.net
___
*  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] Reminder - SIG Mailing List Acceptable Use

[Srinivas Chendi]

Dear SIG Members,

As a reminder, use of the Special Interest Group (SIG) mailing lists is 
subject to the SIG Charter, a copy of the Policy SIG Charter may be 
found here

https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/

The SIG mailing lists have been established to allow for effective 
exchange of information and postings between the SIG Members, focused on 
the discussions relevant to the SIG Charter.

Any other comments or postings in the SIG mailing lists will not be 
tolerated and the poster may subject to loss of posting privileges and 
removal from the list.

APNIC encourages you to subscribe to the "apnic-talk" mailing list for 
any other relevant information sharing with the entire community.

https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk


Thank you for your cooperation.



APNIC Secretariat secretar...@apnic.net
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)   Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 AustraliaFax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLDhttp://www.apnic.net


*  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] editorial clarification on prop-131

[Srinivas Chendi]

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:
> 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"  en nombre de jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> 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:  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-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hi all,

If this proposal reaches consensus and endorsed by the APNIC EC, this is 
how we would implement the policy.

**Creation of AS0 (Zero) ROA
- Based on the publicly available “delegated-apnic-extended-latest” 
stats file at https://ftp.apnic.net/stats/apnic/
- All resources (IPv4 and IPv6) flagged as “Available” and “Reserved” 
will be added to the AS0 ROA.
- On average 15 records are updated in the 
“delegated-apnic-extended-latest" file daily.
- AS0 ROA will be updated at the same time as resource (IPv4 and IPv6) 
delegation to exclude these prefixes.
- Relying party will see the changes when the propagation of updated AS0 
ROA is completed and this may take up to 24 hours.
- As a reference, the default sync periods of some relying party 
validation tools are as follows:

  - RIPE validator v2: every hour
  - RIPE validator v3: every 10 minutes
  - Routinator: every hour
  - rcynic: every hour

**Account closure
- APNIC makes extensive effort to contact the Member
- If all efforts failed, APNIC will decide to terminate and reclaim all 
resources delegated to that member. At the same time/day all whois 
objects for that account will be deleted.
- “delegated-apnic-extended-latest” stats file is updated within 24hours 
to flag the reclaimed resources as “Reserved”
- Reclaimed resource prefixes will be added to the AS0 ROA at the time 
of reclamation.
- If the closed member created any ROAs these will be deleted at the 
time of reclamation.

**Account reactivation
- If the APNIC Member reactivates the account within 3 months from the 
account closure, APNIC will re-delegate the reclaimed resources and 
reinstates whois objects and ROAs.
- “delegated-apnic-extended-latest” stats file is updated within 24hours 
to flag the re-delegated resources as “Allocated or Assigned”
- At the time of reactivation, AS0 ROA will be updated to exclude the 
re-delegated prefixes


**Clarifications requested:

The way in which the ROAs appear in the RPKI needs to be considered. 
Currently, the hierarchy involves a TA (for 0/0, ::/0, etc.), an 
intermediate CA (same resource set), five further CAs (one for IANA and 
one for each other RIR), and then the member CAs

(see diagram on slide 8 of 
https://conference.apnic.net/44/assets/files/APCS549/Transitioning-to-a-single-TA.pdf).

Three possible options are:

 - have the intermediate CA issue an AS0 ROA;
 - have each of the IANA/RIR CAs issue an AS0 ROA;
 - construct a separate CA under each of the IANA/RIR CAs
 containing the relevant unallocated resources, and have each of
 those CAs issue an AS0 ROA.

Does the community have any preference out of these three options?

Regards
Sunny
___

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD  |  http://www.apnic.net
___


On 27/08/2019 9:25 am, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote:
> Hi Javed,
> 
> Thanks for your email and for your participation in the policy 
> development process.
> 
> We're consulting our experts to provide a response to your query soon. 
> Please allow us sometime.
> 
> Regards
> Sunny
> 
> On 24/08/2019 12:28 am, Javed Khan wrote:
>> For now, I'm neither for or against this proposal. I think the 
>> intention of the author is good but the implementation is not as easy 
>> as is explained in the proposal. QoS is very crucial for ISPs to 
>> sustain the fierce market competition and if APNIC fails to timely 
>> update the AS0 ROAs, this will effect the service delivery and/or 
>> network downtime.
>>
>> I request APNIC to provide a detailed review of this proposal from a 
>> service and legal perspective so the community can better understand 
>> the implementation, if this proposal reaches consensus.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Javed Khan
>> MSCE and CCSP
>>
>>
>> 
>> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
>>  on behalf of David Farmer 
>> 
>> *Sent:* Friday, 23 August 2019 10:48 AM
>> *To:* Aftab Siddiqui 
>> *Cc:* Sumon Ahmed Sabir ; Policy SIG 
>> 
>> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:04 PM Aftab Siddiqui 
>> mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi David,
>>
>>
>>     On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 6:36 AM David Farmer >     > wrote:
>>
>>     The problem statement says;
>>
>>     Bogons are defined in RFC3871, A "Bogon" (plural: "bogons")
>>     is a packet
>>     with an IP source address in an address block not yet
>>     allocated by IANA
>>     or the Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, RIPE NCC, APNIC,
>>     AFRINIC and
>>  

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hi Javed,

Thanks for your email and for your participation in the policy 
development process.

We're consulting our experts to provide a response to your query soon. 
Please allow us sometime.

Regards
Sunny

On 24/08/2019 12:28 am, Javed Khan wrote:
> For now, I'm neither for or against this proposal. I think the intention 
> of the author is good but the implementation is not as easy as is 
> explained in the proposal. QoS is very crucial for ISPs to sustain the 
> fierce market competition and if APNIC fails to timely update the AS0 
> ROAs, this will effect the service delivery and/or network downtime.
> 
> I request APNIC to provide a detailed review of this proposal from a 
> service and legal perspective so the community can better understand the 
> implementation, if this proposal reaches consensus.
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> Javed Khan
> MSCE and CCSP
> 
> 
> 
> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
>  on behalf of David Farmer 
> 
> *Sent:* Friday, 23 August 2019 10:48 AM
> *To:* Aftab Siddiqui 
> *Cc:* Sumon Ahmed Sabir ; Policy SIG 
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:04 PM Aftab Siddiqui  > wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 6:36 AM David Farmer  > wrote:
> 
> The problem statement says;
> 
> Bogons are defined in RFC3871, A "Bogon" (plural: "bogons")
> is a packet
> with an IP source address in an address block not yet
> allocated by IANA
> or the Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, RIPE NCC, APNIC,
> AFRINIC and
> LACNIC)...
> 
> 
> So that raises a question, what about resources that are
> deregisterd because they are returned, revoked, or otherwise
> reclaimed, for any of a myriad of reasons, including non-payment
> of fees? Do they become Bogons with AS0 ROAs the moment they are
> deregistered? Later, if so when? What if there is a ROA for them
> in the system? Are the ROAs removed, if so when?
> 
> 
> I also had some concerns about revoked and/or reclaimed space and
> closed account due to non payment so I asked Secretariat in advance
> and here is the response.
> ===
> APNIC membership account is classified as closed when its status is
> flagged as ‘closed’ in APNIC’s internal system.
> 
> 30 days - payment period upon issuance of invoice, if no payment is
> received within this period member receives expiry notice and the
> account status becomes 'suspended'
> After 15 days – member receives email notification for closure
> giving them another 15 days to pay
> After 15 days – the status of the account becomes 'closed' and all
> delegated resources under the account are reclaimed
> 
> All in all members have 60 days period to pay before the status of
> the account becomes ‘closed’.
> ===
> 
> As long as the account is suspended APNIC doesn't consider those
> resources as free/available/reclaimed and because they are not part
> of unallocated pool thats why no need to create AS0 ROAs for such
> resources. AS0 ROAs will be created once APNIC mark those resources
> available and remove them from their delegation record. Now, the
> second issue is if there is a ROA for them in the system. Because AS
> 0 ROA has a lower relative preference than any other ROA that has a
> routable AS then APNIC has to somehow delete the existing ROA from
> the system. Its easy if the member account is closed and all
> resources are reclaimed. But I leave this to APNIC to decide how
> they are going to make that happen.
> 
> 
> Currently, when the account is closed nothing actively makes the 
> resources unusable, accept for if you were also changing providers 
> during this timeframe, then when the new provider checks the resources 
> they will be unregistered. But most providers don't recheck the 
> registration of resources very often, if ever, other than at the time of 
> setup of service.
> 
> With this proposal at some point, the resource will effectively become 
> unusable with nonpayment, when the AS0 ROA is created, and any ROAs are 
> removed, I'm fine with this, but it should be called out as a 
> consequence of the proposal, so no one can say they didn't realize that 
> is a consequence of the proposal.
> 
> This proposal changes the consequences for nonpayment, that should be 
> made clear in the proposal one way or another.
> 
> Also as Owen noted the RIRs frequently have a hold period after the 
> account is closed, resource are usually held for some period after 
> account closure and before they are reissued to a new user.
> 
> Personally I think they should be deregistered for some amount
> of time before 

[sig-policy] End of Final editorial comments on draft policy document

[Srinivas Chendi]

__

End of Final editorial comments on draft policy document
___

The deadline for final editorial comments on draft policy document
closed on 02 July 2019.

Sections 6.1 and 12.1 of the document "APNIC Internet Number Resource
Policies" has been updated, to implement two policy proposals reaching
consensus at APNIC 47, and published as APNIC-127 version 007.

 https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources

The proposals are:

  - prop-128: Multihoming not required for ASN
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-128/

  - prop-129: Abolish Waiting list for unmet IPv4 requests
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-129/


Kind regards,

___

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD  |  http://www.apnic.net
___
*  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] Final editorial comments on draft policy document

[Srinivas Chendi]

__

Final editorial comments on draft policy document
___

APNIC seeks final editorial comments on the following draft changes to
the APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies document.

The document has been updated to implement two policy proposals reaching
consensus at APNIC 47.

The proposals are:

 - prop-128: Multihoming not required for ASN
   https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-128/

 - prop-129: Abolish Waiting list for unmet IPv4 requests
   https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-129/

Nature of the document review
-
This is an editorial review only. Consensus has already been reached on
these policy changes.

Therefore, during the comment period, interested parties may:
   - Object to the wording provided by the Secretariat
   - Suggest improvements to any aspect of the document
   - Request that an additional call for comment be made if substantial
 revisions are required

To view the draft document, please see:

 https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/drafts/apnic-127-v007/


Implementation date
---

Tuesday, 2 July 2019


Deadline for comments
-
Your comments are requested before 02 July 2019. Please send your 
comments to: policy at apnic dot net


Regards,

___

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD  |  http://www.apnic.net
___
*  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] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hi Jordi,

You're right! We haven't been able to enable DMARC on our mailman due to a 
number of dependencies and
risks but we are looking into migrating to a new server soon.

Regards
Sunny

On 15/05/2019 1:19 am, Srinivas Chendi wrote:

Thanks Jordi.

FYI, consulting with our technical team about this.

Regards
Sunny

On 15/05/2019 12:20 am, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:


Hi Aftab,

If you don’t get my emails in the list, it may be due to DMARC. Email
servers (such as mine), using DMARC, may get rejected by clients of
mailing lists if the mailing list is keeping my email instead of using
the list one.

It may happen that the APNIC list is not correctly configured?

In all the other RIRs and IETF, this has been “fixed” in mailman long
time ago.


Regards,

Jordi

El 14/5/19 16:09, "Aftab Siddiqui" 
mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>
<mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com><mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>> escribió:

Hi Jordi,

You can always bring any topic to apnic-talk mailing list for
discussion. Not everything has to be discussed on policy-sig mailing list.

And somehow I’m not receiving your emails sent to the policy-sig mailing
list :)

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 11:15 pm, Srinivas Chendi 
mailto:su...@apnic.net>
<mailto:su...@apnic.net><mailto:su...@apnic.net>> wrote:

Hi Jordi,

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion so far.

As per the SIG Guidelines, Policy SIG Chair is responsible to accept or
reject a proposal and to check if it is in scope of the active SIG
charter.

Please refer to the section 2.4 of SIG Guidelines
https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines/


Accept or reject proposals for discussion at the forthcoming SIG (and
suggest an alternative forum if the topic is not relevant to that
particular SIG) [1]

[1] The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion
at the forthcoming SIG session if:

  The proposal is out of scope 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 8:11 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.
 >
 > We have a recent experience of policies (resource hijacking is a
policy
 > violation) being declared out-of-scope in ARIN by the AC. I know
the PDP
 > is 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" mailto:o...@delong.com>
<mailto:o...@delong.com><mailto:o...@delong.com>
 > <mailto:o...@delong.com 
<mailto:o...@delong.com><mailto:o...@delong.com>>> escribió:
 >
 >
 > On May 11, 2019, at 06:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
 > mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> 
<mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es><mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
<mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es
<mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es><mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>>> 
wrote:
 >
 > Just to make it clear. Do you believe that the PDP update is
out of
 > the scope?
 >
 > No
 >
 >
 >
 > I think that the PDP is not related to resource management,
but the
 > “self-management” of the way the community discusses the resource
 > management and agree on the way it should be managed.
 >
 > The pdp is absolutely related to the management of resources in
that it
 > is the process by which we develop those policies.
 >
 >
 >
 > And for me as more we restrict the wording, more risks to wrongly
 > get things that today are in-scope, to be left out.
 >
 > Agreed. However, in my view, your proposal is not less
restrictive, just
 > more verbose.
 >
 > Owen
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Regards,
 >
 > Jordi
 >
 > El 11/5/19 1:27, "Owen DeLong" 
mailto:o...@delong.com>
<mailto:o...@delong.com><mailto:o...@delong.com>
 > <mailto:o...@delong.com 
<mailto:o...@delong.com><mailto:o...@delong.com>>> escribió:
 >
 > 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

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Srinivas Chendi]

Thanks Jordi.

FYI, consulting with our technical team about this.

Regards
Sunny

On 15/05/2019 12:20 am, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi Aftab,
> 
> If you don’t get my emails in the list, it may be due to DMARC. Email 
> servers (such as mine), using DMARC, may get rejected by clients of 
> mailing lists if the mailing list is keeping my email instead of using 
> the list one.
> 
> It may happen that the APNIC list is not correctly configured?
> 
> In all the other RIRs and IETF, this has been “fixed” in mailman long 
> time ago.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jordi
> 
> El 14/5/19 16:09, "Aftab Siddiqui"  <mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>> escribió:
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
> You can always bring any topic to apnic-talk mailing list for 
> discussion. Not everything has to be discussed on policy-sig mailing list.
> 
> And somehow I’m not receiving your emails sent to the policy-sig mailing 
> list :)
> 
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 11:15 pm, Srinivas Chendi  <mailto:su...@apnic.net>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
> Thanks for your contribution to this discussion so far.
> 
> As per the SIG Guidelines, Policy SIG Chair is responsible to accept or
> reject a proposal and to check if it is in scope of the active SIG
> charter.
> 
> Please refer to the section 2.4 of SIG Guidelines
> https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines/
> 
> 
> Accept or reject proposals for discussion at the forthcoming SIG (and
> suggest an alternative forum if the topic is not relevant to that
> particular SIG) [1]
> 
> [1] The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion
> at the forthcoming SIG session if:
> 
>       The proposal is out of scope 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 8:11 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.
>  >
>  > We have a recent experience of policies (resource hijacking is a
> policy
>  > violation) being declared out-of-scope in ARIN by the AC. I know
> the PDP
>  > is 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"  <mailto:o...@delong.com>
>  > <mailto:o...@delong.com <mailto:o...@delong.com>>> escribió:
>  >
>  >
>  > On May 11, 2019, at 06:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>  > mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
> <mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es
> <mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>>> wrote:
>  >
>  >     Just to make it clear. Do you believe that the PDP update is
> out of
>  >     the scope?
>  >
>  > No
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >     I think that the PDP is not related to resource management,
> but the
>  >     “self-management” of the way the community discusses the resource
>  >     management and agree on the way it should be managed.
>  >
>  > The pdp is absolutely related to the management of resources in
> that it
>  > is the process by which we develop those policies.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >     And for me as more we restrict the wording, more risks to wrongly
>  >     get things that today are in-scope, to be left out.
>  >
>  > Agreed. However, in my view, your proposal is not less
> restrictive, just
>  > more verbose.
>  >
>  > Owen
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >     Regards,
>  >
>  >     Jordi
>  >
>  >     El 11/5/19 1:27, "Owen DeLong"  <mailto:o...@delong.com>
>  >     <mailto:o...@delong.com <mailto:o...@delong.com>>> escribió:
>  >
>  >     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.
>  >
>  >  

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hi Jordi,

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion so far.

As per the SIG Guidelines, Policy SIG Chair is responsible to accept or 
reject a proposal and to check if it is in scope of the active SIG charter.

Please refer to the section 2.4 of SIG Guidelines
https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines/


Accept or reject proposals for discussion at the forthcoming SIG (and 
suggest an alternative forum if the topic is not relevant to that 
particular SIG) [1]

[1] The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion 
at the forthcoming SIG session if:

 The proposal is out of scope 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 8:11 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.
> 
> We have a recent experience of policies (resource hijacking is a policy 
> violation) being declared out-of-scope in ARIN by the AC. I know the PDP 
> is 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 
> mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>> wrote:
> 
> Just to make it clear. Do you believe that the PDP update is out of
> the scope?
> 
> No
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the PDP is not related to resource management, but the
> “self-management” of the way the community discusses the resource
> management and agree on the way it should be managed.
> 
> The pdp is absolutely related to the management of resources in that it 
> is the process by which we develop those policies.
> 
> 
> 
> And for me as more we restrict the wording, more risks to wrongly
> get things that today are in-scope, to be left out.
> 
> Agreed. However, in my view, your proposal is not less restrictive, just 
> more verbose.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jordi
> 
> El 11/5/19 1:27, "Owen DeLong"  > escribió:
> 
> 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
> mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>>
> 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
> depwil...@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.
> 
>   

[sig-policy] End of Final editorial comments on draft policy document

[Srinivas Chendi]

__

End of Final editorial comments on draft policy document
___

The deadline for final editorial comments on draft policy document 
closed on 07 May 2019.

Sections 5.3.4 and 6.0 of the document "APNIC Internet Number Resource 
Policies" has been updated, to implement two policy proposals reaching 
consensus at APNIC 46 and APNIC 47, and published as APNIC-127 version 006.

https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources

The proposals are:
  - prop-125: Validation of “abuse-mailbox” and other IRT emails
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-125/

  - prop-127: Change maximum delegation size of 103/8 IPv4 address
pool to a /23
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-127/


Kind regards,

___

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD  |  http://www.apnic.net
___
*  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] Final editorial comments on draft policy document

[Srinivas Chendi]

__

Final editorial comments on draft policy document
___

APNIC seeks final editorial comments on the following draft changes to 
the APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies document.

The document has been updated to implement two policy proposals reaching
consensus at APNIC 46 and APNIC 47.

The proposals are:
 - prop-125: Validation of “abuse-mailbox” and other IRT emails
   https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-125/

 - prop-127: Change maximum delegation size of 103/8 IPv4 address 
pool to a /23
   https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-127/

Nature of the document review

This is an editorial review only. Consensus has already been reached on
these policy changes.

Therefore, during the comment period, interested parties may:
 - Object to the wording provided by the Secretariat
 - Suggest improvements to any aspect of the document
 - Request that an additional call for comment be made if substantial
   revisions are required

To view the draft document, please see:

 https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/drafts/apnic-127-v006/


Implementation date
--
prop-125: Scheduled for June 2019.
prop-127: Implemented immediately.


Deadline for comments
-
Your comments are requested before 07 May 2019.
Please send your comments to: policy at apnic dot net


Kind regards,

___

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD  |  http://www.apnic.net
___
*  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 EC endorses prop-125 - Validation of abuse-mailbox and other IRT emails

[Srinivas Chendi]

___

APNIC EC endorses policy proposal
___


Dear colleagues

The APNIC EC (Executive Council) endorsed the proposal "prop-125: 
Validation of abuse-mailbox and other IRT emails" at its meeting on
5-7 December 2018. Minutes from this meeting will be available after 
they have been adopted at the next EC meeting.

As this proposal is complex, it requires more technical changes to
APNIC software and Whois. Therefore, it will be implemented by the APNIC
Secretariat during the second quarter of 2019.

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-125/


Regards
--
___

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD  |  http://www.apnic.net
___
*  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] Reminder: APNIC 47 - Call for Proposals for Policy SIG

[Srinivas Chendi]

This is a reminder that the deadline set by the Policy SIG Chair for
proposals to be discussed at APNIC 47 is less than two weeks away.

If you have any ideas to improve policy, or wish to make an
informational presentation about an aspect of resource management,
please follow the instructions below.

The submission deadline for APNIC 47 is Friday, 18 January 2019.


Submit a Policy Proposal


Complete the online form at:

https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/submit-a-policy-proposal/

For more information on becoming an author go to:

https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/process/guidelines-for-proposal-authors


Propose a presentation
--

Send your synopsis to "policy at apnic dot net".

We look forward to and encourage your participation in the APNIC 47 OPM.

https://conference.apnic.net/47/apnic-sigs/policy-sig-call-for-proposals/

Kind Regards,
Sunny and George
APNIC Secretariat

___

Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD  |  http://www.apnic.net
___
*  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] BoF on Leasing - Remote Participation

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hi Skeeve,

Thanks! Yes, we will broadcast this session live with one-way 
audio/video and chat.


-Sunny

On 21/02/2014 11:50 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:

Good on Sunny! He always comes though ;-)


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
ske...@eintellegonetworks.com mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ;
www.eintellegonetworks.com http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellegonetworks
http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ;
http://twitter.com/networkceoaulinkedin.com/in/skeeve
http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog:
www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/


The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud- Consulting- IPv4 Brokering


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Sanjaya Sanjaya sanj...@apnic.net
mailto:sanj...@apnic.net wrote:

Hi Skeeve and all,

We're working on it. Sunny should be able to confirm soon.

Cheers,
Sanjaya


 Original message 
From: Skeeve Stevens
Date:21/02/2014 11:41 AM (GMT+10:00)
To: sig-pol...@apnic.net mailto:sig-pol...@apnic.net SIG List
Subject: [sig-policy] BoF on Leasing - Remote Participation

Hi all,

Who at APNIC could assist this session having some remote participation?

I think it is very valuable to have it as open as possible, and some
people (like me) haven't been able to make it to this conference.

Even just audio with chat would be great.

...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
ske...@eintellegonetworks.com
mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellegonetworks
http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ;
http://twitter.com/networkceoaulinkedin.com/in/skeeve
http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog:
www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/


The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud- Consulting- IPv4 Brokering




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



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