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 <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/
> 
> <snip>
> 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
> </snip>
> 
> 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" <o...@delong.com 
>> <mailto:o...@delong.com>> escribió:
>> 
>> 
>> On May 11, 2019, at 06:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
>> <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" <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.
>> 
>>    Owen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        On May 10, 2019, at 09:30 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>>        <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es <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"
>>        <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
>>        <mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net>en nombre
>>        depwil...@apnic.net <mailto: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
>>        <mailto: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 <o...@delong.com
>>            <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
>>                    <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com
>>                    <mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>                    Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative,
>> 
>>                    <nitpik>
>> 
>>                    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.
>> 
>>                    </nitpik>
>> 
>>                    Regards,
>> 
>>                    Aftab A. Siddiqui
>> 
>>                    On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir
>>                    <sasa...@gmail.com <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
>>                        <mailto: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
>>                    <mailto: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 <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
>>            https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>> 
>>        * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>>        _______________________________________________ sig-policy
>>        mailing listsig-pol...@lists.apnic.net
>>        
>> <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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

*              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

Reply via email to