I agree with Owen here. I oppose as written.
On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > Opposed as written. > > Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy > on a case-by-case > basis is antithetical to an informed multi-stakeholder community consensus > policy development > process. > > Owen > > On Mar 4, 2015, at 00:02 , Masato Yamanishi <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > Dear SIG members > > A new version of the proposal “prop-114: Modification in the ASN > eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > Information about earlier versions is available from: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 > > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? > > Please find the text of the proposal below. > > Kind Regards, > > Masato > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > prop-114-v002: 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 states two eligibility criteria > and that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain 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 where they still > have a valid justification for obtaining an ASN. > > > 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 providing alternate criteria to obtaining an ASN. > > > 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 (awaiting Chair > decision) > > 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: > > - they are currently multi-homed OR > > - meet one of the other criteria in the guidelines managed by the > APNIC Secretariat > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------------------- > > Advantages: > > By adding the additional criteria of Guidelines managed by APNIC > Secretariat, this would enable the Secretariat to make decisions > based on common or rare use cases, but that may still be a valid > request. > > Disadvantages: > > It may be perceived that this policy would enable members to obtain > ASN’s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN’s > in the region. Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with > ‘work around’ methods, we do not perceive this will actually have > any effect. > > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > --------------------------------------- > > No impact on existing resource holders. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Proposed Draft Guidelines > (to be created as a numbered document by APNIC) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The below are example of guidelines that could be considered for > alternate needs justification. > > The intention to multi-home in the future > > The applicant is participating in elastic fabrics where the > requirements to connect to ‘on demand’ service providers may require > ASN/BGP connectivity > > Regional limitation of obtaining multi-homing connectivity in the > ‘immediate’ term, but want to design their networks for this capability > > Have a single unique routing policy different to their upstream, but > yet > are single-homed > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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
