Dean

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:

I think Randy's taking the wrong tactic with this.

Policy needs to be a series of no-rules cage fights or, maybe, something along the line of gladiator traditions in Roman time.

Then it could be televised, a profit made and APNIC run from that profit rather than charging for IP addresses and ASes.

MMC

On 09/07/2012, at 6:08 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:

> Morning all,
>
> Randy Bush (from IIJ in Japan) has just tabled a policy for discussion
> at the August APNIC members meeting.
> Essentially if passed this would see the APNIC policy development
> process disolved.
>
> I'm interested in feedback that people on this list may have, and I'm
> happy to pass it along on the sig-policy list or in person at the
> meeting.
> As always, feel free to contribute to what I'm sure will be heated
> discussion on the APNIC sig-policy list. �I'll try and summarise the
> happenings back here.
>
> Regards,
> Dean
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andy Linton <asjl@lpnz.org>
> Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM
> Subject: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
> To: SIG policy <sig-policy@apnic.net>
>
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> The proposal "prop-103-v001: �A Final IP Address Policy Proposal" has
> been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
> It will be discussed at the Policy SIG at APNIC 34 in Phnom Penh,
> Cambodia, Thursday, 30 August 2012.
>
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. 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 and other policy proposals is available from:
>
> � � � � � �https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-103
>
> Andy, Skeeve, Masato
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Author: Randy Bush
> � � � � <randy@psg.com>
>
>
> 1. Introduction
> -------------------
>
> IPv4 is history, with no need to add more policy. �IPv6 is sufficiently
> plentiful that further policies are not needed. �So let us agree to make
> no more IP address policies or proposals.
>
>
> 2. Summary
> ----------------
>
> The APNIC community spends time and resources proposing, discussing,
> arguing, ... about IP address policies out of habit. �The process is no
> longer relevant to actually coordinating the prudent and high quality
> operation of the internet.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> ---------------------------------
>
> There is an industry of policy wannabes spending inordinate time and
> resources making endless policy proposals about miniscule issues and
> baroque corner cases. �This is a waste of time and other resources.
>
>
> 4. Details
> -------------
>
> The policy proposal and decision processes should be closed and stopped
> after the Phnom Penh meeting.
>
> Should an emergency arise, where community consensus is needed, the EC
> can organize fora for forming that consensus.
>
>
> 5. Pros/Cons
> -----------------
>
> Advantages:
>
> � � - We would not have to spend time discussing things of small
> � � � consequence and which do not help the customer/user in any real way.
>
> Disadv> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog