Re: [nznog] APNIC - The policy to end all policies prop-103-v001

In that case let me add a 'me too' vote. I agree with the suggestion that Randy's putting an extreme motion forward in the hope of perhaps provoking discussion (surely he doesn't actually think this?) and perhaps in seeing a 'lesser' result. By keeping the process for discussing and making change readily accessible, you're not putting virtual barriers up. Fundamental to an 'open' system, surely? I do feel that some of the APNIC mailing lists which wind up discussing policy suggestions, can't necessarily shut down obscure or just plain silly ideas quickly enough, but that's perhaps a victim of the principle of openness. I'm not sure that shutting down the process is the right way to go, however. Mark. (All IMHO only etc.) On 11/07/12 16:00, Dean Pemberton wrote:

I agree. While the proposer suggests that new policies could be taken to the APNIC EC. That appears like a much harder and top-down approach than we have now.

Your reply is what I need to hear more of in order to give a strong message at the members meeting.

Dean

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012, Jordan Carter wrote:

Maybe an obvious point but: how would we know, today, everything about what we need re IP numbering policies in future?

Some form of PDP is a basic thing to keep going, in case changes are needed in future.

Jordan Carter

On 11/07/2012, at 3:53 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:

...

So let me ask a simple question.

Do people think that there is a need to develop any more IP policies? Or are all the policies we have the moment sufficient for the future?

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 > Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM > Subject: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal > To: SIG policy > > > 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 > > > > 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. >

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog