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>
> 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>

 > >> 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" 
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.
 >
 > Owen
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > On May 10, 2019, at 09:30 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
 > mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>

>>
 > 

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"  > 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  > 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"  
>  > >> 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
>  >          
> >>
>  >         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 

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Amrita]

Apologies for the delay in responding, I agree to Paul’s version as it is 
succinct and addresses the concern for which the SIG Charter.

 

Regards

 

From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 9:21 AM
To: Sumon Ahmed Sabir
Cc: mailman_SIG-policy
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

 

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> 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.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sumon

 

  

 

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:

Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language. 

 

First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to members at 
all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one change I think 
should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not all LIRs are 
technically ISPs, though that is certainly the most common case.

 

As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to see 
how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”.

 

I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to take my 
NIR suggestion.

 

Owen

 





On May 5, 2019, at 03:21 , Aftab Siddiqui  wrote:

 

Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative, 

 



Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs only, 
I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource holders in Asia 
Pacific region". Because not all members are resource holders.

 

Secondly, when you start mentioning topics in the charter then it may create 
confusion moving forward that only these topics can be covered so how about 
adding "not limited to" or "services related to resources" or something like 
that. 



 

 

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui

 

 

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir  wrote:

Dear Members,





In the last APNIC meeting in Daejoan there was a discussion that there is a 
perception 

That Policy SIG discusses only about “Address Policy”. On the other hand there 
is a understanding 

that Policy SIG covers a wider range of registry issues, RPKI or any other 
topics that requires a

procedures and rules. 





To avoid confusion and to bring clarity in the Policy Charter few proposals 
came in. That either we can change the Name of the Policy SIG to cover wider 
range or to amend the Policy-SIG Charter to bring clarity about the scope of 
Policy SIG.





After discussions chairs feels that we can make some changes in the SIG Charter 
to bring clarity:









Current SIG Charter  <https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/> 
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/ says:









‘The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies and procedures which relate to 
the management and 

use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia 
Pacific region.”





And here is the possible changes proposed:





 “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the management 
and use of Internet  address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia 
Pacific region.  These include policies for resource allocation, recovery and 
transfer, and for resource registration within whois, reverse DNS, RPKI and 
related services.”





Please share your views, comments or suggestions in this regard.









Sincerely,





Sumon, Bertrand and Ching-Heng

Chairs, Policy-SIG

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

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

 

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

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
__

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Sunny,

I understand that, however, that's the reason for having a proper charter, so 
the chairs have a "base" to take a decision.

If the text of the charter is not clear, then even if they want to accept a 
policy proposal, they can't.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

El 14/5/19 15:15, "Srinivas Chendi"  escribió:

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
> 

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

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"  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  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"  > 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 

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

I guess I confused you.

I was not mixing two things. One example was the PDP update in APNIC (or other 
regions), another example was the rejection because considered out-of-scope of 
the "resource hijacking proposal".

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

El 14/5/19 16:08, "Owen DeLong"  escribió:

My own opinion only and not speaking on behalf of or for the AC...

In the case of ARIN, your proposal was not to modify the PDP and addressed 
primarily the detailed operational practices of ARIN staff. It did not address 
the administration and registration of number resources, but rather the 
behavior of individuals external to ARIN with regard to how they configure 
their routers. 

In ARIN, the PDP is under the control of the board and is not modifiable 
via the PDP. 

I see no connection between your efforts here and your out of scope 
proposal there. 

Owen


> On May 14, 2019, at 06:15, Srinivas Chendi  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" > > 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 

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Aftab Siddiqui]

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  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"  > > 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,
> >
> >
>  

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Owen DeLong]

My own opinion only and not speaking on behalf of or for the AC...

In the case of ARIN, your proposal was not to modify the PDP and addressed 
primarily the detailed operational practices of ARIN staff. It did not address 
the administration and registration of number resources, but rather the 
behavior of individuals external to ARIN with regard to how they configure 
their routers. 

In ARIN, the PDP is under the control of the board and is not modifiable via 
the PDP. 

I see no connection between your efforts here and your out of scope proposal 
there. 

Owen


> On May 14, 2019, at 06:15, Srinivas Chendi  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" > > 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 

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.
> 
>   

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Owen DeLong]

> On May 11, 2019, at 06:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ  
> 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  
> 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"  de pwil...@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.
>  
> Sincerely,
>  
> Sumon
>  
>   
>  
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language. 
>  
> First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to members 
> at all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one change I 
> think should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not all LIRs 
> are technically ISPs, though that is certainly the most common case.
>  
> As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to see 
> how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”.
>  
> I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to take my 
> NIR suggestion.
>  
> Owen
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On May 5, 2019, at 03:21 , Aftab Siddiqui  wrote:
>  
> Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative, 
>  
> 
> Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs 
> only, I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource holders 
> in Asia Pacific region". Because not all members are resource holders.
>  
> Secondly, when you start mentioning topics in the charter then it may create 
> confusion moving forward that only these topics can be covered so how about 
> adding "not limited to" or "services related to resources" or something like 
> that. 
> 
>  
>  
> Regards,
> 
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>  
>  
> On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir  wrote:
> Dear Members,
> 
> 
> 
> In the last APNIC meeting in Daejoan there was a discussion that there is a 
> perception 
> That Policy SIG discusses only about “Address Policy”. On the other hand 
> there is a understanding 
> that Policy SIG covers a wider range of registry issues, RPKI or any other 
> topics that requires a
> procedures and rules. 
> 
> 
> 
> To avoid confusion and to bring clarity in the Policy Charter few proposals 
> came in. That either we can change the Name of the Policy SIG to cover wider 
> range or to amend the Policy-SIG Charter to bring clarity about the scope of 
> Policy SIG.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Just to make it clear. Do you believe that the PDP update is out of the scope?

 

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.

 

And for me as more we restrict the wording, more risks to wrongly get things 
that today are in-scope, to be left out.


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  
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"  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.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sumon

 

  

 

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:

Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language. 

 

First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to members at 
all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one change I think 
should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not all LIRs are 
technically ISPs, though that is certainly the most common case.

 

As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to see 
how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”.

 

I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to take my 
NIR suggestion.

 

Owen

 




On May 5, 2019, at 03:21 , Aftab Siddiqui  wrote:

 

Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative, 

 



Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs only, 
I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource holders in Asia 
Pacific region". Because not all members are resource holders.

 

Secondly, when you start mentioning topics in the charter then it may create 
confusion moving forward that only these topics can be covered so how about 
adding "not limited to" or "services related to resources" or something like 
that. 



 

 

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui

 

 

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir  wrote:

Dear Members,




In the last APNIC meeting in Daejoan there was a discussion that there is a 
perception 

That Policy SIG discusses only about “Address Policy”. On the other hand there 
is a understanding 

that Policy SIG covers a wider range of registry issues, RPKI or any other 
topics that requires a

procedures and rules. 




To avoid confusion and to bring clarity in the Policy Charter few proposals 
came in. That either we can change the Name of the Policy SIG to cover wider 
range or to amend the Policy-SIG Charter to bring clarity about the scope of 
Policy SIG.




After discussions chairs feels that we can make some changes in the SIG Charter 
to bring clarity:







Current SIG Charter https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/ says:







‘The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies and procedures which relate to 
the management and 

use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia 
Pacific region.”




And here is the possible changes proposed:




 “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the management 
and use of 

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Owen DeLong]

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  
> 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 de pwil...@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.
>>  
>> Sincerely,
>>  
>> Sumon
>>  
>>   
>>  
>> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong > > wrote:
>>> Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language. 
>>>  
>>> First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to 
>>> members at all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one 
>>> change I think should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not 
>>> all LIRs are technically ISPs, though that is certainly the most common 
>>> case.
>>>  
>>> As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to 
>>> see how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”.
>>>  
>>> I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to take 
>>> my NIR suggestion.
>>>  
>>> Owen
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
 On May 5, 2019, at 03:21 , Aftab Siddiqui >>> > wrote:
  
 Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative, 
  
 
 Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs 
 only, I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource 
 holders in Asia Pacific region". Because not all members are resource 
 holders.
  
 Secondly, when you start mentioning topics in the charter then it may 
 create confusion moving forward that only these topics can be covered so 
 how about adding "not limited to" or "services related to resources" or 
 something like that. 
 
  
  
 Regards,
 
 Aftab A. Siddiqui
  
  
 On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir >>> > wrote:
> Dear Members,
> 
> 
> In the last APNIC meeting in Daejoan there was a discussion that there is 
> a perception 
> That Policy SIG discusses only about “Address Policy”. On the other hand 
> there is a understanding 
> that Policy SIG covers a wider range of registry issues, RPKI or any 
> other topics that requires a
> procedures and rules. 
> 
> 
> To avoid confusion and to bring clarity in the Policy Charter few 
> proposals came in. That either we can change the Name of the Policy SIG 
> to cover wider range or to amend the Policy-SIG Charter to bring clarity 
> about the scope of Policy SIG.
> 
> 
> After discussions chairs feels that we can make some changes in the SIG 
> Charter to bring clarity:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current SIG Charter https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/ 
>  says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies and procedures which 
> relate to the 

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Owen DeLong]

Works for me.

Owen


> On May 9, 2019, at 20:50 , Paul Wilson  wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sumon
> 
>   
> 
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language.
> 
> First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to members 
> at all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one change I 
> think should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not all LIRs 
> are technically ISPs, though that is certainly the most common case.
> 
> As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to see 
> how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”.
> 
> I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to take my 
> NIR suggestion.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
>> On May 5, 2019, at 03:21 , Aftab Siddiqui > > wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative,
>> 
>> 
>> Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs 
>> only, I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource holders 
>> in Asia Pacific region". Because not all members are resource holders.
>> 
>> Secondly, when you start mentioning topics in the charter then it may create 
>> confusion moving forward that only these topics can be covered so how about 
>> adding "not limited to" or "services related to resources" or something like 
>> that. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir > > wrote:
>> Dear Members,
>> 
>> In the last APNIC meeting in Daejoan there was a discussion that there is a 
>> perception 
>> That Policy SIG discusses only about “Address Policy”. On the other hand 
>> there is a understanding 
>> that Policy SIG covers a wider range of registry issues, RPKI or any other 
>> topics that requires a
>> procedures and rules. 
>> 
>> To avoid confusion and to bring clarity in the Policy Charter few proposals 
>> came in. That either we can change the Name of the Policy SIG to cover wider 
>> range or to amend the Policy-SIG Charter to bring clarity about the scope of 
>> Policy SIG.
>> 
>> After discussions chairs feels that we can make some changes in the SIG 
>> Charter to bring clarity:
>> 
>> 
>> Current SIG Charter https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/ 
>>  says:
>> 
>> 
>> ‘The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies and procedures which relate 
>> to the management and 
>> use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia 
>> Pacific region.”
>> 
>> And here is the possible changes proposed:
>> 
>>  “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the 
>> management and use of Internet  address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs 
>> within the Asia Pacific region.  These include policies for resource 
>> allocation, recovery and transfer, and for resource registration within 
>> whois, reverse DNS, RPKI and related services.”
>> 
>> Please share your views, comments or suggestions in this regard.
>> 
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Sumon, Bertrand and Ching-Heng
>> Chairs, Policy-SIG
>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy  
>>  *
>> ___
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 
>> *  
>> sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
>> ___
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 
>> 
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 
> 

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Thanks Paul,

This addresses all my concerns.

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui


On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 1:51 PM Paul Wilson  wrote:

> 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.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sumon
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
>> Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language.
>>
>> First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to
>> members at all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one
>> change I think should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not
>> all LIRs are technically ISPs, though that is certainly the most common
>> case.
>>
>> As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to
>> see how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”.
>>
>> I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to
>> take my NIR suggestion.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> On May 5, 2019, at 03:21 , Aftab Siddiqui 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative,
>>
>> 
>> Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs
>> only, I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource holders
>> in Asia Pacific region". Because not all members are resource holders.
>>
>> Secondly, when you start mentioning topics in the charter then it may
>> create confusion moving forward that only these topics can be covered so
>> how about adding "not limited to" or "services related to resources" or
>> something like that.
>> 
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Members,
>>>
>>> In the last APNIC meeting in Daejoan there was a discussion that there
>>> is a perception
>>> That Policy SIG discusses only about “Address Policy”. On the other hand
>>> there is a understanding
>>> that Policy SIG covers a wider range of registry issues, RPKI or any
>>> other topics that requires a
>>> procedures and rules.
>>>
>>> To avoid confusion and to bring clarity in the Policy Charter few
>>> proposals came in. That either we can change the Name of the Policy SIG
>>> to cover wider range or to amend the Policy-SIG Charter to bring clarity
>>> about the scope of Policy SIG.
>>>
>>> After discussions chairs feels that we can make some changes in the SIG
>>> Charter to bring clarity:
>>>
>>>
>>> Current SIG Charter https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/
>>>  says:
>>>
>>>
>>> ‘The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies and procedures
>>> which relate to the management and
>>> use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the
>>> Asia Pacific region.”
>>>
>>> And here is the possible changes proposed:
>>>
>>>  “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to
>>> the management and use of Internet  address resources by APNIC, NIRs,
>>> and ISPs within the Asia Pacific region.  These include policies for
>>> resource allocation, recovery and transfer, and for resource registration
>>> within whois, reverse DNS, RPKI and related services.”
>>>
>>> Please share your views, comments or suggestions in this regard.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Sumon, Bertrand and Ching-Heng
>>> Chairs, Policy-SIG
>>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>>  *
>>> ___
>>> sig-policy mailing list
>>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>   *
>> ___
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>>
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> *  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   *

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Hi Owen,

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language.
>
> First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to
> members at all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one
> change I think should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not
> all LIRs are technically ISPs, though that is certainly the most common
> case.
>

I agree with your first point, I did misread the language slightly :) so no
argument on that. But LIR will further confuse people as within APNIC
region we don't use this term as in RIPE NCC to replace it with every
member.


> As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to
> see how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”.
>

The whole argument in the last meeting started because it states "Address
Resource" and whether this is the right platform to discuss something
related to whois or any other topic. I am in favor of making it more
generic rather putting specific words.


>
> I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to take
> my NIR suggestion.
>
> Owen
>
>
*  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

[Paul Wilson]

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.

Sincerely,

Sumon



On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong 
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language.

First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to members at 
all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one change I think 
should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not all LIRs are 
technically ISPs, though that is certainly the most common case.

As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to see 
how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”.

I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to take my 
NIR suggestion.

Owen


On May 5, 2019, at 03:21 , Aftab Siddiqui 
mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative,


Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs only, 
I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource holders in Asia 
Pacific region". Because not all members are resource holders.

Secondly, when you start mentioning topics in the charter then it may create 
confusion moving forward that only these topics can be covered so how about 
adding "not limited to" or "services related to resources" or something like 
that.



Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui


On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir 
mailto:sasa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Members,

In the last APNIC meeting in Daejoan there was a discussion that there is a 
perception
That Policy SIG discusses only about “Address Policy”. On the other hand there 
is a understanding
that Policy SIG covers a wider range of registry issues, RPKI or any other 
topics that requires a
procedures and rules.

To avoid confusion and to bring clarity in the Policy Charter few proposals 
came in. That either we can change the Name of the Policy SIG to cover wider 
range or to amend the Policy-SIG Charter to bring clarity about the scope of 
Policy SIG.

After discussions chairs feels that we can make some changes in the SIG Charter 
to bring clarity:


Current SIG Charter https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/ says:


‘The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies and procedures which relate to 
the management and
use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia 
Pacific region.”

And here is the possible changes proposed:

 “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the management 
and use of Internet  address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia 
Pacific region.  These include policies for resource allocation, recovery and 
transfer, and for resource registration within whois, reverse DNS, RPKI and 
related services.”

Please share your views, comments or suggestions in this regard.


Sincerely,

Sumon, Bertrand and Ching-Heng
Chairs, Policy-SIG
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy


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

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative,


Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs
only, I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource holders
in Asia Pacific region". Because not all members are resource holders.

Secondly, when you start mentioning topics in the charter then it may
create confusion moving forward that only these topics can be covered so
how about adding "not limited to" or "services related to resources" or
something like that.



Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui


On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir  wrote:

> Dear Members,
>
>
> In the last APNIC meeting in Daejoan there was a discussion that there is
> a perception
>
> That Policy SIG discusses only about “Address Policy”. On the other hand
> there is a understanding
>
> that Policy SIG covers a wider range of registry issues, RPKI or any other
> topics that requires a
>
> procedures and rules.
>
>
> To avoid confusion and to bring clarity in the Policy Charter few
> proposals came in. That either we can change the Name of the Policy SIG
> to cover wider range or to amend the Policy-SIG Charter to bring clarity
> about the scope of Policy SIG.
>
>
> After discussions chairs feels that we can make some changes in the SIG
> Charter to bring clarity:
>
>
>
> Current SIG Charter https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/
>  says:
>
>
>
> ‘The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies and procedures which relate
> to the management and
>
> use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia
> Pacific region.”
>
>
> And here is the possible changes proposed:
>
>
>  “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to
> the management and use of Internet  address resources by APNIC, NIRs,
> and ISPs within the Asia Pacific region.  These include policies for
> resource allocation, recovery and transfer, and for resource registration
> within whois, reverse DNS, RPKI and related services.”
>
>
> Please share your views, comments or suggestions in this regard.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Sumon, Bertrand and Ching-Heng
>
> Chairs, Policy-SIG
> *  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