[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
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
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
