Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team..
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-146, based on a meeting we organised on 29th Aug to discuss these proposals. Many neutral opinions were expressed about this proposal. (comment details) - I understand that there is some divergence between the title and its content, but I don't see the need to change the title. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team 2022年8月11日(木) 15:58 chku <[email protected]>: > > Dear SIG members, > > The proposal "prop-146: Aligning the Contrast" has been sent to > the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on > Thursday, 15 September 2022. > > https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8 > > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list > before the OPM. > > The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important > part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). 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 appended below as well as available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-146 > > Regards, > Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-146-v001: Aligning the Contrast > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: Anupam Agrawal ([email protected]) > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > Section 3 of APNIC 127 - APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies have two > broad sections. Section 3.1 talks about Goals of Resource Management and > Section 3.2 talks about Policy Environment. Section 3.1 has currently eight > sub sections which essentially are the eight goals of Resource Management. > > Section 3.1.4 is titled as No Guarantee of contiguous delegation. The > description in the section is about making an effort for contiguous > delegation. Additionally, as an exception, it has been noted that there is no > guarantee that it can be adhered all the time. The title of the section > appears to be in contrast to the goal described in the section. > > > Section 3.1.8 is titled as Conflict of Goals. The subheading appears > contradictory to the intent of section 3.1 as Conflict of Goals appears to be > one of the goals of Resource Management. Herein, the intention is to provide > a way out by balancing the needs wherein the goals appears to be in conflict > with each other. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > The objective is to align the contrasting headings and descriptions therein. > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > Not relevant > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > Section 3.1.4 heading be changed from No Guarantee of contiguous delegation > to Contiguous Delegation. > > Section 3.1.8 heading be changed from Conflict of Goals to Balancing the > goals. Another policy option herein can be to completely deprecate the > section. The reasons are mentioned below. > > There are three paragraphs in the section. The first paragraph – “The goals > described above will often conflict with each other, or with the needs of > individual IRs or end-users. All IRs evaluating requests for address space > must make judgments, seeking to balance the needs of the applicant with the > needs of the Internet community as a whole.” Is already covered in the > opening paragraph of Section 3.0 wherein it states “responsible management > involves balancing a set of sometimes competing goals.” As such the first > paragraph can be completely removed. > > The second paragraph states that – “This document is intended to help IRs > perform their role in consistent and equitable ways. IRs must maintain full > documentation of and transparency within the decision-making process.” This > can be moved to the opening statement of Section 3.0. > > The third paragraph states that – “In IPv6 address policy, the goal of > aggregation is considered to be the most important.”. This can be moved to > section 3.1.3. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > Advantages: > The contrasting heading and explanations in the paragraphs if corrected will > allow to remove the contradictions and present a seamless document. > > Disadvantages: > None. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------- > None. > > > 7. References > ------------- > None. > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- -- Satoru Tsurumaki BBIX, Inc _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
