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 <nznog@deanpemberton.com> 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 <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.
>


_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog