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