Izumi and all,
Hi German and Anne,
Thanks for the clarification.
If the v6 policy is to be "co-ordinated" but not unique, I agree that it is sufficient to announce the consensus in the global ML, but my understanding is different.
I thought that all the RIRs share a single policy document for IPv6 and may create supplmentary documents/fringe policies to accomodate minor differences. Based on this context, I assumed that any major changes in the policy document requires consensus of the global community, and not only within the region.
I agree that your assumption regarding v6 or for that matter v4 regarding major allocation policy requires or should require a measured consensus by all of the participating stakeholders/users.
It is my understanding that the extent of regional differences accomodated in the v6 policy had never been publicly discussed nor stated. All I want to do is clarify this part, which was why I wished to confirm whether there had been any agreement among the RIRs.
Seems to me from following these ML's that the RIR's staff are making or attempting to make policy without any or adequate verifiable measured consensus of the participating stakeholders/users. I know our members in the different regions feel this way and I have ask for but not yet received any confirmation of a demonstrated measured consensus documentation from all regions..
Let me emphasise once again that I am not against the idea of having a regional policy. I also understand that the LACNIC community has good reasons to implement the policy change.
The policy change that the STAFF of LACNIC has been proportion is needed and/or desired has to my knowledge not reached a participating stakeholder/user measured consensus.
If either all RIRs, or the global community thinks it's fine to have a regional policy and this has been clearly stated, I don't have any problem about the LACNIC community implementing its own policy.
It should and in our members view, that any or all regions that are seeking a regional policy regarding v6 or v4 allocations, must have the measured consensus of the stakeholder/users in those regions. To date none do that I am aware of or have been shown as legitimately documented.
Could I assume that we all agree about having regional policies in IPv6? (I'd interpret this as not only apply to LACNIC but also to other RIRs)
No we don't all agree that there should be regional policies for v6 in as much as minimum allocations as far as I can tell...
Izumi
From: Anne Lord <anne@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:04:35 +1000 (EST)
Hi Izumi, Kosuke,
Could I confirm once again that this was the concious decision(acknowledgement) made by all RIRs, having considered its implications?
I think German has replied to this question and I think the reply from the APNIC Secretariat will be similar.
This was *not* part of a concious decision or acknowledgement made by all the RIRs. The decision flowed from the LACNIC community proposing and accepting the proposal as meeting a 'need' in their region.
It is useful to observe that this policy is globally co-ordinated rather than a global policy: there were never any agreements by any RIR staff that there would be a single global policy. Actually APNIC EC has taken a decision to interpret one aspect of the policy in a way that differs from the other regions. See:
http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ipv6-policy-clarification.html
I also see this and the LACNIC change as part of the normal globally co-ordinated policy development processes. My understanding is that the reason that LACNIC announced their consensus on the global-v6 policy discussion list, was in order to collect feedback from the other regions, and if necessary to re-asses the consensus decision. In other words, this was an attempt to look at the global context and to co-ordinate.
Also please feel welcome to bring the proposed change, and this discussion to the agenda of the Policy SIG at the forthcoming APNIC Open Policy Meeting.
Best wishes,
Anne --
From: Kosuke Ito <kosuke@bugest.net> Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:08:36 +0900
Hi, German and all
I do understand that LACNIC community like to have their own "bootstrap" condition for deploying IPv6 in LACNIC region, but I do NOT like to have it with an open jaw condition, anyway.
And, I would like to know other RIRs people's view on this matter, and how LACNIC consider the possible side effect to the global community once the LACNIC special condition is implemented. I believe that RIRs/NIRs community should have a single view (even though each region has a different need) on the global coordinated policy like the IPv6 policy which was built up on the large amount of efforts balancing many factors from the global point of view, since the IP address space is a global resourse shared accross the globe. And RIRs/NIRs, I personally believe, should set a allowance of changing the global policy to accomodate a local need. When it needs to change (locally), possible effects after the change should be discussed from the global resourse management point of view at the same time.
I would not like to see avalanche multiplication on relaxing the allocation conditions initiating from LACNIC to all other regions... This is my worry.
Regards,
Kosuke
German and all,
I wonder when if ever LACNIC will be seeking advisory input from the stakeholders/users in their region? I also wonder if LACNIC does seek such input, that the desires and requirements of those participating stakeholders/users will be adheared to in a responsible and direct way?
German Valdez wrote:
Hi Izumi
sorry for delay
It is intention of the RIR to work in common policies, like the IPv6 one, when this is possible.
Nevertheless, this IPv6 policy proposal is the result of a regional need. So far has accomplished all the step of our Policy Development Process.
Even though common policies may work well they are not bindig for the RIR.
We are aware that this proposal is broken a common policy. For this reason we are sharing this criteria with the Global IPv6 community.
This 45 days period of comment (which ends at january 23rd) is not
the policy development process, however is a faculty of LACNIC's Board to do this. The reason was to recieve more comments from the global community before the Board made a decision.
Regards
German Valdez Policy Liaison LACNIC
At 12:07 AM 1/7/2004, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>It had been my understanding that IPv6 policy would be co-ordinated >among the RIRs, but this seems to imply a regional policy like IPv4. > >That's also one method of the policy process that's proved to work >well, but it should at least be a concious decision by the RIRs(or its >communities). > >Could someone from the RIRs share the position about this? > >Izumi >JPNIC > >From: German Valdez <german@lacnic.net> >Subject: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region >Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:16:29 -0300 > > >> >>FYI LACNIC is calling for last comments for new policies to be applied > >next > >>year. One of this policies is a new criteria for IPv6 Initial allocation. >> >>This proposal is the result of the analysis of the LACNIC IPv6 WG and the >>discussion held during our Open Policy Forum in The Havana, Cuba >> >>You can review this proposal at http://lacnic.net/en/last-call.html >> >>On december 9th we started a 45 days period for comments for these >>policies, including the IPv6 one. Comments will be received
Jeff Williams wrote: part of through our
>>policy public list politicas@lacnic.net, subscription to this list is open >>at http://lacnic.net/en/lists.html. Any comments are welcomed. >> >>Regards >> >> >> >>German Valdez >>Policy Liaison >>LACNIC >> >>_______________________________________________ >>global-v6 mailing list >>global-v6@lists.apnic.net >>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 >> > >_______________________________________________ >global-v6 mailing list >global-v6@lists.apnic.net >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
_______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list global-v6@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
Regards,
-- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
_______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list global-v6@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
-- **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************ Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan (Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University) Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955 Cell:+81-90-4605-4581 mailto: kosuke@v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/ Lifetime e-mail: kosuke@stanfordalumni.org
_______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list global-v6@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
_______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list global-v6@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
_______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list global-v6@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-01-20, at 22.56, Jeff Williams wrote:
It is my understanding that the extent of regional differences accomodated in the v6 policy had never been publicly discussed nor stated. All I want to do is clarify this part, which was why I wished to confirm whether there had been any agreement among the RIRs.
Seems to me from following these ML's that the RIR's staff are making or attempting to make policy without any or adequate verifiable measured consensus of the participating stakeholders/users. I know our members in the different regions feel this way and I have ask for but not yet received any confirmation of a demonstrated measured consensus documentation from all regions..
How many of you members are going to the RIPE meeting next week? How many of your members are registered as LIRs in the RIPE region? - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQA4k1aarNKXTPFCVEQKYuwCdEuSz9vYPcw4jXKa46hapn6wT2VkAoMue vcsiTZrmRnJygAr4YHHuWFUv =hQdE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kurt and all, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2004-01-20, at 22.56, Jeff Williams wrote:
It is my understanding that the extent of regional differences accomodated in the v6 policy had never been publicly discussed nor stated. All I want to do is clarify this part, which was why I wished to confirm whether there had been any agreement among the RIRs.
Seems to me from following these ML's that the RIR's staff are making or attempting to make policy without any or adequate verifiable measured consensus of the participating stakeholders/users. I know our members in the different regions feel this way and I have ask for but not yet received any confirmation of a demonstrated measured consensus documentation from all regions..
How many of you members are going to the RIPE meeting next week?
I have no idea actually. Some will be for sure..
How many of your members are registered as LIRs in the RIPE region?
First the members of our organization are no MY members.. I also don't have a clue here either for sure. I can find out I suppose. I know there are several...
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3
iQA/AwUBQA4k1aarNKXTPFCVEQKYuwCdEuSz9vYPcw4jXKa46hapn6wT2VkAoMue vcsiTZrmRnJygAr4YHHuWFUv =hQdE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-01-21, at 10.24, Jeff Williams wrote:
How many of you members are going to the RIPE meeting next week?
I have no idea actually. Some will be for sure..
Good. So if they don't like the policy as it stands, the mikes are open! There, done. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQA4tMqarNKXTPFCVEQI4RwCeOhTppcO/tGITp7bdUeJy1k5IwkMAoLWn 9Grg3AbgcNblbWci0ih0zz8Y =7OVa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kurt and all, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2004-01-21, at 10.24, Jeff Williams wrote:
How many of you members are going to the RIPE meeting next week?
I have no idea actually. Some will be for sure..
Good. So if they don't like the policy as it stands, the mikes are open!
Good! As I am the elected spokesman for our organization I have already provided our concerns and interests for the respective regions..
There, done.
Also done and more likely to come...
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3
iQA/AwUBQA4tMqarNKXTPFCVEQI4RwCeOhTppcO/tGITp7bdUeJy1k5IwkMAoLWn 9Grg3AbgcNblbWci0ih0zz8Y =7OVa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
participants (2)
-
Jeff Williams -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist