Chiristopher, Fernando et al,
I am an employee of the entity which runs an NIR. Let me clarify on some points
which have appeared in this thread.
1) an NIR needs to enter into "APNIC and NIR Member Relationship Agreement" and
needs to comply with it. Its article 3.2-e stipulates
"Enter into a formal membership agreement or other suitable contractual
arrangement with its own members or account holders who receive Internet
resources from the NIR Member, requiring such members or account holders to
comply with resource and address management policies which are consistent, and
not in conflict, with APNIC Address Management Policies, and to take all
reasonable steps to enforce compliance with such agreement or arrangement;"
therefore, the NIR's policy should be consistent and not in conflict with
APNIC's one.
2) This doesn't mean "NIR shouldn't think about its own policy" but "NIR can
think about its own policy if it be consistent and not in conflict with APNIC's
one". Some NIRs predate APNIC as David pointed out, some has additional
constraint by national law and there may be local circumstances, which may
require a bit different setup domestically.
3) In JPNIC case we had elaborated our own policy process to have an independent
community process to develop JPNIC's IP address policy and established the
mechanism to develop policies which the local community wants and at the same
time which are consistent with APNIC's one. It was presented by Mr NAKAGAWA
Akira, Chair of Japan's forum, in APNIC56 in Kyoto.
https://conference.apnic.net/56/assets/files/APJS642/ip-address-as-commun_1694574856.pdf
Maybe it's beyond your imagination, but we are doing our policy process with
consistency with APNIC's one well taken into account. If you had any unclear
point, I will try to answer as far as I can.
Hope it helps,
Akinori
On 2024/01/24 8:49, Christopher Hawker wrote:
They play a important administrative role in certain places and economies,
but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to develop policies.
I disagree. As David has identified, NIRs may in some cases may have legal
mandates set by the governments of their economies relating to the management
of address space which may not be relevant to other economies. In these
circumstances it would be appropriate for these NIRs to set these policies at
an economy level, rather than that of a regional level. Further, some NIR
policies may be defined as a means to better serve their communities whereas
they could be detrimental to others (not saying that they would).
Allowing this to happen open doors to unnecessary discrepancies,
bureaucracy and sometimes unfairness within the same RIR region which
should not exist.
Again, I disagree. NIRs that fall under APNIC are seen and treated as regular
APNIC members and any relationship between an LIR and an NIR is exactly that -
between them. Network operators within NIR service regions are welcome to
choose whether to obtain resources directly from APNIC or their NIR and can
move their holdings between the two. I don't see how this would open doors to
bureaucracy and unfairness, rather it is a transparent process.
I just found really strange when you write a proposal in APNIC having to
specify in the text if that policy is to be apply also to the NIRs. This
type of things should never be necessary.
To my knowledge, you do not need to expressly state whether a policy applies
at an RIR level only or must apply to members of NIRs as well. An NIR is
permitted to define their own policies, however, under APNIC's policies any
policy defined by an NIR must not conflict with an APNIC policy.
By ICANN ICP-2 that estabilish the criteria for new RIRs and process of
Policy Development and don't say a word about NIRs.
The ICP-2 process does not cover the establishment of NIRs, therefore ICP-2 is
irrelevant in their discussion. Should the NIR wish to convert to becoming an
RIR then yes, ICP-2 would then apply.
Since any resources are allocated to RIRs and than to NIRs they must
always be submit to the policies developed solely by that RIR community
and that is quiet reasonable.
As NIRs within the APNIC service region are members of APNIC themselves, yes,
they are subject to the policies as defined by APNIC and its members through
the PDP. NIRs have special agreements and MoUs in place that allow and afford
them other roles, responsibilities and functions.
Again, one thing are specific administrative specificity that may be
required in certain countries and jurisdictions and another are the
policies that are developed by the community of that RIR in a bottom-up
process.
If I interpreted that correctly, you said that it's one thing for an NIR to
define a policy that is legally mandated, but it's another thing for an RIR to
define a policy using a bottom-up approach. If that is correct, the two cannot
be compared as the legally mandated policy has a legal requirement for its
implementation, whereas policies at an RIR that follow a PDP don't have legal
requirements for implementation (in the sense that law states that they must
be implemented). If the Australian government were to pass legislation which
required APNIC to operate in a certain manner or to implement a specific
policy, I'm sure APNIC's legal counsel would be all over it before we even
caught wind of it.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
