Anne and all, Anne Lord wrote:
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.
I did not see Germans answer to this question nor to mine I ask him below on this thread. I also checked the archives and also cannot find his answer. The APNIC Secretariat's answer was indirect and cryptic in nature as it does not reflect the needs of the stakeholders/users of the regions community that can be demonstrated. I did request some evidence of such demonstrated/measured consensus, of the secretariat, but after two days, none has been forthcoming...
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
Ah yes well as has already been observed and recently discussed, this "Clarification" has been refuted...
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.
It is almost always a wise idea to co-ordinate between and with any or all regions. However one ML for doing so is not shown to be adequate for accomplishing said co-ordination...
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