On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:

I believe that what is going on here is a case of someone making an extreme proposal in the hope that a moderate one will be gladly accepted instead.

Absolutely; but if you examine an extreme proposal carefully you might find that it is less extreme than you assumed. Or at least it will help you identify exactly what should be in the moderate position -- start with default deny instead of default accept, for example. Instead of looking for policies to remove, look for the ones that need to be kept. -jim

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.

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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz javascript:; http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

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.

Actually, I think that this proposal is more than just to incite thinking, it actually has merit. The v4 space is functionally all assigned. Many/Most of the existing policies are focused on events that are no longer relevent. new policies, if any, should ensure accurate recording of stewardship. It would make an ISP's life -MUCH- simpler. /bill On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 03:53:19PM +1200, 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.

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(a)list.waikato.ac.nz javascript:; http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

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