Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region

[Kosuke Ito <kosuke@bugest.net>]

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


Jeff Williams wrote:
 > 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
part of
 >>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 
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