Hello Bikram, Shaila and Ching-Heng,
The "APNIC Policy Development Process" (document reference APNIC-111 version
003) under 3.1 "Policy proposal" reads as follows:
The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion at the
forthcoming OPM if:- The proposal is out of scope for the Policy 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.
Could I please ask, how the Chairs have determined that the proposals currently
on the table for discussion are of a "greater priority" than Jonathan's
proposal? For the record, the "first in best dressed" methodology does not
constitute "greater priority". Further, it is not within the Chairs' remit to
decide what proposals are accepted based on the outcome of existing proposals
when they do not conflict. Prop-162 is based on WHOIS Privacy, the proposal
submitted (based on the title) is regarding Acceptable Use Terms for APNIC
Directory Services.
Further, I note that Prop-165 was withdrawn at APNIC 61 by the authors
(referencing the email from Bikram sent on 16 February 2026, see
https://orbit.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/DL5JZ2HMNYCXSSUU7FQ4VJJ3V5LKKUVI/),
yet the same proposal number (prop-165) version 3 was published for discussion
yesterday. On what basis was the decision made to reinstate a proposal that was
withdrawn, instead of presented as a new proposal?
I am putting forward to the Chairs and the community, that Prop-165 titled
"Provision of IPv4 Address Space to IPv6-only Networks for Transitional
Purpose" be withdrawn by the Chairs or delayed for presentation and discussion
at APNIC 63, and the proposal submitted by Jonathan Brewer titled "Copyright
and Acceptable Use Terms for APNIC Directory Services" be tabled for discussion
at APNIC 62.
There are some concerns with this proposal and reasons for the above:
Acknowledging the potential for author bias, there is a reasonable expectation
that Prop-168 that I have submitted, will deplete the available address pool
within 6 months. Point 1 of the "Sunset Provision" within the Proposed Policy
Solution of Prop-165 states that the Secretariat can trigger this "sunset
provision" and cease delegations under the policy (if implemented). This, in
and of itself, would render Prop-165 redundant.
Point 2 of the "Sunset Provision" states that the Secretariat can cease
delegations under this policy (if implemented) based on a threshold determined
by the community. Given that this would require detailed discussion, and it is
highly unlikely that a threshold will be agreed to by a reasonable number of
community members within the next 3 weeks (allowing for one week for a revised
version to be published to the mailing list for discussion prior to the OPM),
this means that a consensus call cannot be made on this proposal. This would
(in my opinion) be better suited for an extended discussion to ensure a
reasonable number of members provide feedback prior to a consensus on the
threshold being decided, and an updated version submitted.
Point 3, also of the Sunset Provision, reads "The APNIC Executive Council
determines that continued operation of this policy would materially threaten
equitable access to remaining IPv4 resources". The Executive Council should not
be making decisions on the application of policy in relation to the delegation
of Internet Number Resources, unless said delegations would materially harm
APNIC's ongoing operations, or are out of scope and on the remote chance have
managed to make its way through the PDP to the EC for endorsement. This can be
considered a conflict with the bottom-up approach of the Policy Development
Process as operational changes to policy (such as this) are required to be run
through the PDP, and "equitable access" to IPv4 resources does not constitute
"material harm" to APNIC.
On an operational level, this proposal does not fundamentally add or remove any
existing mechanisms or functions that current policy does not already allow
for. I believe it would be safe to say that if (under current policy) a member
requested a /24 with the justification that they are multihoming between two
upstreams and require the space for transitional services the delegation would
be granted.
This recommendation is not to minimise the importance of the author's proposal
in any way or to undervalue the time they have invested in its drafting, its
more so to show that greater time is required to ensure that this proposal is
shaped in a way that affords it the best chance of reaching consensus, and that
as a result other proposals should be considered a "greater priority".
Having said all of the above, the absence of sufficient time does not prevent
the Chairs from accepting a proposal for discussion at a future event. It is
well within the Chair's capacity to accept a proposal for discussion, and make
a decision to delay the discussion and consensus call for discussion at a
future OPM. Can the Chairs please advise why the decision to not accept the
proposal for discussion on the mailing list was made, when it meets all
conditions for acceptance, and the Chairs "acknowledge the issue raised and
support the work in principle"?
I look forward to a prompt reply from the Chairs, given that we are only 29
days out from the OPM.
Regards,Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
