So it doesn't look like there is a problem here. The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them.
Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake. What's the problem statement here? On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Dean, > > We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to > apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted > the policy wording. > > However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do > contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 > or ASN assignment based on the current policy. > > Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but > we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is > required. > > George K > > On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote: > >> 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 has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters >> ever been a barrier to entry? >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Dear SIG members >> >> The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN 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-114 >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Masato >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN 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 ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility >> criteria >> and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy >> seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and >> clearly >> defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this >> has >> created much confusion in interpreting the policy. >> >> As a result organizations have either provided incorrect >> information >> to get the ASN 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 describing the eligibility criteria for ASN >> assignment by removing multi-homing requirement for the >> organization. >> >> >> 3. Situation in other regions >> ----------------------------- >> >> ARIN: >> It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get >> ASN >> >> RIPE: >> Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in >> discussion >> and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 >> Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/ >> policies/proposals/2014-03 >> >> LACNIC: >> only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing >> >> AFRINIC: >> It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. >> >> >> 4. Proposed policy solution >> --------------------------- >> >> An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it: >> - Is planning to use it within next 6 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 >> information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility. >> >> Disadvantages: >> >> No disadvantage. >> >> >> 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] <mailto:[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 >> >> > -- -- 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
