Dear Mike and Fernando,
Mike:
I have been under the impression that the APNIC NIRs must adhere to APNIC
policies but could create their own policies if they don’t contradict those of
APNIC.
Yes. Please notice the policy proposals in APNIC sig-policy often have the
section of "applicability in NIR" (sorry no phrase in my crappy memory) and
there are cases where NIRs have some room for localizing it. It's due to some
reasons. In JPNIC case we have our own registry system and the policies which
require additional implementation at the registry system often need some
treatment like allowance for the local implementation. For the transfer, APNIC
doesn't force NIRs to allow transfer, but it was under the discretion of NIR to
allow it or now and that isn't recognized to contradict APNIC policy.
Moreover, from a bit different angle, If an NIR only can implement APNIC policy,
how local community can propose a policy they want? It sounds like the local
people still need to propose it to APNIC sig-policy? So in case of Japan we
have a local policy forum where community members can propose something to the
existing policies and established the mechanism to keep consistency between
local forum and sig-policy - proposals in local forum, if once got consensus,
will be brought to sig-policy, a new policy proposals in sig-policy will be
introduced in the local to measure temperature and being reported back to
sig-policy and consensus policy in sig-policy will be simply reviewed in the
local for implementation at JPNIC.
Hope these help you. I wonder why NIR got such a big spot light, but I am happy
to explain further. I think we with local policy forum leaders do the right things.
Thank you,
Akinori
On 2024/01/25 1:00, Mike Burns wrote:
In the past I have had problems with the transfer policies of APNIC NIRs not
matching APNIC’s own transfer policies.
When those differences prevented a transfer I asked APNIC to intervene by
imposing the (governing, to my mind) APNIC transfer policies on the
recalcitrant NIR.
And that was effective but maybe it didn’t settle the issue, which I think
should be clear to all.
I believe that there is a hierarchy in which the topmost organizations
delegate some specified roles to subsidiary organizations via some document
like a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
It would be such a document that spells out whether policies must match, or if
they mismatch which is controlling.
I have been under the impression that the APNIC NIRs must adhere to APNIC
policies but could create their own policies if they don’t contradict those of
APNIC.
I hope somebody can clear it up.
Regards,
Mike
*From:* Fernando Frediani <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2024 10:25 AM
*To:* sig-policy <[email protected]>
*Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation
for each IPv4 request
To resume my initial point there is no point in allowing NIRs to develop and
have specific policies, complicate and confuse things unecessarily. Policies
developed by the entire RIR community is more than enough in order to regulate
how IP addreess assignment is conducted as in all.other RIRs worldwide.
NIRs may well continue to exist and perform their administrative functions
under the umbrella of the RIR facilitating things in certain economies and
cultures.
Best regards
Fernando
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 11:47 Fernando Frediani, <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 07:39 David Conrad, <[email protected]> wrote:
Fernando,
On Jan 24, 2024, at 4:19 AM, Fernando Frediani <[email protected]>
wrote:
> No government should ever be able to mandate anything related to
policy development and how they apply to IP space assignment and use.
I’m actually curious: why do you believe you (or the RIRs) are able to
tell governments what they can or cannot mandate?
I think you are not following this discussion and trying to speak about
soemthing different from what is being discussed. I mentioned several
times the diference between policies and administrative and legal
obligations and you simplify very much the question.
No government is able in practice to determinate what should be the
policies for IP address assignment anywhere. Don't confuse it with mandate
legal obligations within a certain jurisdiction.
> NIRs are never meant to be "mini-RIRs"or something in that line.
I’m unsure what you mean by this. Simply, NIRs were (and are, as far
as I know) intended to provide Internet registration services for
entities within their economy. Overarching guidelines for the policies
by which those service are provided are defined within the Internet
numbers registry system (see RFC 7020) but those guidelines do not
carry the force of law: they require the voluntary cooperation of the
parties involved to be effective.
Maybe your conception about NIRs may not be very accurate and the
difefence between them and the RIRs and the hierarchy that exists.
> No resources would arrive to a NIR if not via the RIR
This is factually incorrect as it ignores the reality that addresses
were allocated (to NIRs and others) prior to the existence of the
RIRs. It also ignores the existence of the “transfer" market.
This is incorrect understanding on how registration works worldwide. Any
inter-RIR tranfers are made following - guess what - RIR policies and as
such all transfers goes trough a RIR system even if they end up in a NIR,
but following RIR policies.
It has been already mentioned that anything done before the existance of
certain RIRs is treated as legacy and from a long time this doesn't exist
anymore so anything anywhere in the world that is not related to legacy
resources is always done via the policies of one of the RIRs.
Fernando
Regards,
-drc
_______________________________________________
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]
