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

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.apnic.net
> > > >   >>>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> > > >   >>>>
> > > >   >>>
> > > >   >>>_______________________________________________
> > > >   >>>global-v6 mailing list
> > > >   >>>global-v6 at lists.apnic.net
> > > >   >>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> > > >   >>
> > > >   >>_______________________________________________
> > > >   >>global-v6 mailing list
> > > >   >>global-v6 at 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 at ix.netcom.com
> > > >   > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   > _______________________________________________
> > > >   > global-v6 mailing list
> > > >   > global-v6 at 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 at v6pc.jp   http://www.v6pc.jp/
> > > > Lifetime e-mail: kosuke at stanfordalumni.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > global-v6 mailing list
> > > > global-v6 at lists.apnic.net
> > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > global-v6 mailing list
> > > global-v6 at lists.apnic.net
> > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> global-v6 at 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 at ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801