Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been able to?
In other words had the current policy in the eyes of the host masters ever been a barrier to entry? I'll also be asking the same question of the other similar policy. On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear SIG members > > The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" > has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, > Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015. > > 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-113 > > Regards > > Masato > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > prop-113-v001: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > Skeeve Stevens > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > The current APNIC IPv4 delegation policy defines multiple > eligibility criteria and applicant must meet one to be eligible to > receive IPv4 resources. One of the criteria dictates that “an > organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed with > provider-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to multi-home > within one month” (section 3.3). > > The policy seems to imply that multi-homing is mandatory even if > there is no use case for the applicant to be multi-homed or even > when there is only one upstream provider available, this has created > much confusion in interpreting this policy. > > As a result organizations have either tempted to provide incorrect > or fabricated multi-homing information to get the IPv4 resources or > barred themselves from applying. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > > In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to > modify the text of section 3.3. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > > ARIN: > There is no multi-homing requirement > > RIPE: > There is no multi-homing requirement. > > LACNIC: > Applicant can either have multi-homing requirement or interconnect. > > AFRINIC: > There is no multi-homing requirement. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > > Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations > An organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed or > inter-connected with provider (ISP)-based addresses, or demonstrates > a plan to advertise the prefixes within 3 months. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > > Advantages: > > Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the policy will > make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong or > fabricated multi-homing information in order to fulfil the criteria > of eligibility. > > Disadvantages: > > There is no known disadvantage of this proposal. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------- > > No impact on existing resource holders. > > > 7. References > ------------- > -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) [email protected] To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
