Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Bertrand Cherrier]

Dean, Skeeve,

Agreed !

Regards,
Bertrand

> Le 7 déc. 2015 à 18:44, Skeeve Stevens  a écrit :
> 
> Dean,
> 
> This is a good policy and should be the sort of thing that is in place at all 
> conferences, not just 2016.
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com  ; www.v4now.com 
> 
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve <>
> facebook.com/v4now  ;  
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve 
> 
> twitter.com/theispguy  ; blog: 
> www.theispguy.com  ; Keybase: 
> https://keybase.io/skeeve 
> 
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> 
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Dean Pemberton  > wrote:
> Good Morning,
> 
> InternetNZ, as the host of APRICOT 2016 would like to take this opportunity 
> to reiterate that it seeks to support the APNIC Policy SIG session during 
> APRICOT 2016 to be an environment where everyone can have their point of view 
> heard in a safe environment.
> 
> To this end InternetNZ, in association with the APIA board, have worked to 
> develop the following Code of Conduct / Anti-harrassment Policy which will be 
> in place for the entire APRICOT 2016 summit.
> 
> We look forward to ensuring that everyone has a great time.
> See you all in Auckland!
> 
> Regards
> Dean 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> APRICOT Code of Conduct/ Anti-harassment Policy
> 
> We value your being at APRICOT 2016 and want everyone to feel safe and
> included!
> 
> APRICOT is dedicated to providing a harassment-free conference
> experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and
> expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body
> size, race, nationality, age or religion.
> 
> We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form.
> Conference participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or
> expelled from the conference without a refund at the discretion of the
> conference organizers.
> 
> Harassment includes, but is not limited to:
> 
> Deliberate intimidation or stalking
> Harassing photography or recording
> Sustained disruption of talks or other events
> Inappropriate physical contact
> Unwelcome sexual attention
> Verbal comments that reinforce social structures of domination
> related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation,
> disability, physical appearance, body size, race, nationality, age, religion.
> Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behaviour.
> Sexual images in public spaces
> 
> If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed,
> or have any other concerns, please contact a member of APRICOT’s staff
> immediately.
> 
> APRICOT staff will be happy to help participants contact venue
> security or NZ Police, provide escorts, or otherwise assist those
> experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of APRICOT.
> 
> We expect participants to follow these rules at all APRICOT venues and
> related social events.  This includes all online/digital spaces.
> 
> If you have any questions, don't understand some of the policy or
> would like to discuss this policy please contact any member of APRICOT
> staff who would be happy to discuss arrange for someone to discuss it
> with you.
> 
> --
> 
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 
> 
> 
> 
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi Chair

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Masato Yamanishi  wrote:

> Skeeve,
>
> Please don't forget that I'm neutral for anybody's opinion in here
> including Lu and Owen,
> and I warned your behavior calling somebody unappropreately, not your
> opinion.
>
> including attacking the Chair when he doesn't agree with them.  Is this
> what you want to happily let him do to APNIC lists?
>
>
> Of course not, but I'm afraid you are doing same thing on this list right
> now.
>

I am sorry to say, but "Same thing" is not correct here, I have never
attack Chair before, saying same thing might imply you are agreeing that I
have done so before.

This is an accusation he just made without any ground and any relation to
this ongoing policy discussion, I hope you would agree.

>
> Masato@iPhone
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2015, at 21:25, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>
> Masato,
>
> I don't care if you are the Chair or not.  Do not use your position to
> accuse someone of personally attacking someone when they are not.  If you
> were being a fair Char, then I'd also expect you to deal with your friend
> Randys passive aggressive insinuations - which you never do, so just back
> off.
>
> I suggest you go research Lu's posts on ARIN and Ripe over the last year
> and you will see the antagonistic approach he uses to turn lists into
> battles, including attacking the Chair when he doesn't agree with them.  Is
> this what you want to happily let him do to APNIC lists?
>
> I for one thank Owen for informing us that Lu was trying to start the
> same/similar arguments on this list has he has done on other RIR lists.  I
> hardly think we need to rehash the same debates unless they are particular
> reference to APNIC and its policy.
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/v4now ;  
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase:
> https://keybase.io/skeeve
>
>
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Masato Yamanishi 
> wrote:
>
>> Skeeve,
>>
>> As the Chair, let me warn you that calling somebody "trouble maker" on
>> the list is a personal attack and it conflicts with APNIC Code of Conduct
>> as shown in below.
>>
>> > >
>>
>> Masato@iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 20:22, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>>
>> Says another trouble maker :)
>>
>>
>> ...Skeeve
>>
>> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
>> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
>> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>>
>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>
>> facebook.com/v4now ;  
>> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>
>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase:
>> https://keybase.io/skeeve
>>
>>
>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
>>
>>> > you seem like a trouble maker.
>>>
>>> ad homina are not appropriate
>>>
>>> randy
>>>
>>
>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>   *
>> ___
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>>
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>


-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Masato Yamanishi]

Lu,

> I am sorry to say, but "Same thing" is not correct here, I have never
attack Chair before, saying same thing might imply you are agreeing that I
have done so before.

I meant same thing as Skeeve mentioned by himself.
It was not my intension to decide whether your behavior in somewhere else
is appropriate or not unless it was done in here.

Regards,
Masato Yamanishi
APNIC Policy SIG Chair


2015-12-06 21:56 GMT+09:00 Lu Heng :

> Hi Chair
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Masato Yamanishi 
> wrote:
>
>> Skeeve,
>>
>> Please don't forget that I'm neutral for anybody's opinion in here
>> including Lu and Owen,
>> and I warned your behavior calling somebody unappropreately, not your
>> opinion.
>>
>> including attacking the Chair when he doesn't agree with them.  Is this
>> what you want to happily let him do to APNIC lists?
>>
>>
>> Of course not, but I'm afraid you are doing same thing on this list right
>> now.
>>
>
> I am sorry to say, but "Same thing" is not correct here, I have never
> attack Chair before, saying same thing might imply you are agreeing that I
> have done so before.
>
> This is an accusation he just made without any ground and any relation to
> this ongoing policy discussion, I hope you would agree.
>
>>
>> Masato@iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 21:25, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>>
>> Masato,
>>
>> I don't care if you are the Chair or not.  Do not use your position to
>> accuse someone of personally attacking someone when they are not.  If you
>> were being a fair Char, then I'd also expect you to deal with your friend
>> Randys passive aggressive insinuations - which you never do, so just back
>> off.
>>
>> I suggest you go research Lu's posts on ARIN and Ripe over the last year
>> and you will see the antagonistic approach he uses to turn lists into
>> battles, including attacking the Chair when he doesn't agree with them.  Is
>> this what you want to happily let him do to APNIC lists?
>>
>> I for one thank Owen for informing us that Lu was trying to start the
>> same/similar arguments on this list has he has done on other RIR lists.  I
>> hardly think we need to rehash the same debates unless they are particular
>> reference to APNIC and its policy.
>>
>> ...Skeeve
>>
>> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
>> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
>> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>>
>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>
>> facebook.com/v4now ;  
>> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>
>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase:
>> https://keybase.io/skeeve
>>
>>
>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Masato Yamanishi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Skeeve,
>>>
>>> As the Chair, let me warn you that calling somebody "trouble maker" on
>>> the list is a personal attack and it conflicts with APNIC Code of Conduct
>>> as shown in below.
>>>
>>> <
>>> https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/mailinglists/code-of-conduct
>>> >
>>>
>>> Masato@iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 20:22, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>>>
>>> Says another trouble maker :)
>>>
>>>
>>> ...Skeeve
>>>
>>> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
>>> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
>>> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>>>
>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>>
>>> facebook.com/v4now ;  
>>> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>>
>>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase:
>>> https://keybase.io/skeeve
>>>
>>>
>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
>>>
 > you seem like a trouble maker.

 ad homina are not appropriate

 randy

>>>
>>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>>   *
>>> ___
>>> sig-policy mailing list
>>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>>
>>>
>>
>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>  *
>> ___
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Masato Yamanishi  wrote:

> Lu,
>
> > I am sorry to say, but "Same thing" is not correct here, I have never
> attack Chair before, saying same thing might imply you are agreeing that I
> have done so before.
>
> I meant same thing as Skeeve mentioned by himself.
> It was not my intension to decide whether your behavior in somewhere else
> is appropriate or not unless it was done in here.
>

Thank you Chair for the clarification.


> Regards,
> Masato Yamanishi
> APNIC Policy SIG Chair
>
>
> 2015-12-06 21:56 GMT+09:00 Lu Heng :
>
>> Hi Chair
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Masato Yamanishi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Skeeve,
>>>
>>> Please don't forget that I'm neutral for anybody's opinion in here
>>> including Lu and Owen,
>>> and I warned your behavior calling somebody unappropreately, not your
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>> including attacking the Chair when he doesn't agree with them.  Is this
>>> what you want to happily let him do to APNIC lists?
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course not, but I'm afraid you are doing same thing on this list
>>> right now.
>>>
>>
>> I am sorry to say, but "Same thing" is not correct here, I have never
>> attack Chair before, saying same thing might imply you are agreeing that I
>> have done so before.
>>
>> This is an accusation he just made without any ground and any relation to
>> this ongoing policy discussion, I hope you would agree.
>>
>>>
>>> Masato@iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 21:25, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>>>
>>> Masato,
>>>
>>> I don't care if you are the Chair or not.  Do not use your position to
>>> accuse someone of personally attacking someone when they are not.  If you
>>> were being a fair Char, then I'd also expect you to deal with your friend
>>> Randys passive aggressive insinuations - which you never do, so just back
>>> off.
>>>
>>> I suggest you go research Lu's posts on ARIN and Ripe over the last year
>>> and you will see the antagonistic approach he uses to turn lists into
>>> battles, including attacking the Chair when he doesn't agree with them.  Is
>>> this what you want to happily let him do to APNIC lists?
>>>
>>> I for one thank Owen for informing us that Lu was trying to start the
>>> same/similar arguments on this list has he has done on other RIR lists.  I
>>> hardly think we need to rehash the same debates unless they are particular
>>> reference to APNIC and its policy.
>>>
>>> ...Skeeve
>>>
>>> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
>>> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
>>> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>>>
>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>>
>>> facebook.com/v4now ;  
>>> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>>
>>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase:
>>> https://keybase.io/skeeve
>>>
>>>
>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Masato Yamanishi 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Skeeve,

 As the Chair, let me warn you that calling somebody "trouble maker" on
 the list is a personal attack and it conflicts with APNIC Code of Conduct
 as shown in below.

 <
 https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/mailinglists/code-of-conduct
 >

 Masato@iPhone


 On Dec 6, 2015, at 20:22, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:

 Says another trouble maker :)


 ...Skeeve

 *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
 *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
 ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

 Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

 facebook.com/v4now ;  
 linkedin.com/in/skeeve

 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase:
 https://keybase.io/skeeve


 IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

 On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > you seem like a trouble maker.
>
> ad homina are not appropriate
>
> randy
>

 *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
   *
 ___
 sig-policy mailing list
 sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
 http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy


>>>
>>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>>  *
>>> ___
>>> sig-policy mailing list
>>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Kind regards.
>> Lu
>>
>>
>


-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Owen DeLong]

Lu, as I stated elsewhere, I did read your post, but I do not trust you.

Owen

> On Dec 6, 2015, at 01:13 , h...@anytimechinese.com wrote:
> 
> I have explained the reasoning of asking it fairly well in one of the list 
> and Owen just didn't read it and speculate my action, fair warning, read to 
> Owen, do not speculate people's action on public space without ground.l, 
> especially such action was already explained publicly. 
> 
> On 6 Dec 2015, at 5:06 AM, Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> 
>> Fair warning, Lu asked the identical question on the ARIN list and (I 
>> presume the RIPE list since he left RIPE in all
>> the key places in the one he posted to ARIN).
>> 
>> It seems to me that he may be doing some form of registry policy shopping.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 06:07 , Skeeve Stevens >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Lu,
>>> 
>>> 1st: I would say no.  There are no followups after allocation and there 
>>> should not be due to the many complication issues that can happen.
>>> 
>>> 2nd: I would say no.  The changing of network infrastructure should NOT 
>>> invalidate the original request which is approved. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ...Skeeve
>>> 
>>> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
>>> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
>>> ske...@v4now.com  ; www.v4now.com 
>>> 
>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve <>
>>> facebook.com/v4now  ;  
>>> linkedin.com/in/skeeve 
>>> 
>>> twitter.com/theispguy  ; blog: 
>>> www.theispguy.com  ; Keybase: 
>>> https://keybase.io/skeeve 
>>> 
>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Lu Heng >> > wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> I have an policy question regarding the "need".
>>> 
>>> We all know when RIR makes approves assignment LIR made if it is beyond 
>>> LIR's assignment window, while the "need" has changed, the assignment 
>>> become invalid.
>>> 
>>> The question come to what the definition of need, as a young people here, I 
>>> am a bit confused, Below I have few examples, please enlighten me if anyone 
>>> has an thought about it.
>>> 
>>> First one:
>>> 
>>> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, RIR 
>>> makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition 
>>> that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to 
>>> location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the 
>>> company's action need to be notified  to RIR? And does this action 
>>> considered invalid the original assignment?
>>> 
>>> Second one:
>>> 
>>> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and 
>>> has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the 
>>> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 
>>> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to 
>>> RIR?
>>> 
>>> So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as the 
>>> service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of original 
>>> justification material was provided, if was the later, then does it imply 
>>> that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream providers 
>>> etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as change of 
>>> purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?
>>> 
>>> What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> --
>>> Kind regards.
>>> Lu
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy 
>>>   *
>>> ___
>>> sig-policy mailing list
>>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy 
>>>   *
>>> ___
>>> sig-policy mailing list
>>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 
>>> 
>> 

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi

I think there are few principles we share across each region, policy
discussion is about policy, not personal, not political, it is about how to
most effectively promote internet around Globe.

Any attempt turning policy discussion into political war ground with
behavior like siding with person but not principle, grouping people, are
not appreciated.

Calling someone who asked a simple policy question in the mailing list
trouble maker because you are siding with someone, is greatly in improper
here.

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> >>> you seem like a trouble maker.
> >> ad homina are not appropriate
> > Says another trouble maker :)
>
> perhaps you could pull your keyboard out of the gutter, at least in
> public?
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Masato Yamanishi]

Lu and Randy,

As shown in APNIC Code of Conduct, you can ask APNIC to delete comments if you 
want.

(Skip)
APNIC does not routinely monitor or moderate the discussions on the APNIC 
Mailing Lists. However, APNIC reserves the right to delete or redact comments 
that contain content that APNIC considers to be unacceptable. This includes 
(but is not limited to) any content that:
Is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
Is libellous, knowingly false, or misrepresents another person
Infringes upon a copyright or trademark
Violates an obligation of confidentiality
Violates the privacy of others including posting emails of others without their 
permission
Uses derogatory or inflammatory language
If APNIC exercises its right to delete or redact a comment, it will say so and 
explain why. If you believe that a comment on the Mailing Lists contain content 
that is unacceptable, please notify APNIC by emailing pr [at] apnic.net.

Masato@iPhone
APNIC Policy SIG Chair



> On Dec 6, 2015, at 20:22, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
> 
> Says another trouble maker :)
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase: 
> https://keybase.io/skeeve
> 
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> 
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
>> > you seem like a trouble maker.
>> 
>> ad homina are not appropriate
>> 
>> randy
> 
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Masato Yamanishi]

Lu and Owen,

I'm doubt that "elsewhere" and "one of the lists" is good way to express your 
opinion to the Community.
Please make a reference clear, if you want to continue this discussion.

Masato@iPhone
APNIC Policy SIG Chair


> On Dec 6, 2015, at 18:22, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
> Lu, as I stated elsewhere, I did read your post, but I do not trust you.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 01:13 , h...@anytimechinese.com wrote:
>> 
>> I have explained the reasoning of asking it fairly well in one of the list 
>> and Owen just didn't read it and speculate my action, fair warning, read to 
>> Owen, do not speculate people's action on public space without ground.l, 
>> especially such action was already explained publicly. 
>> 
>>> On 6 Dec 2015, at 5:06 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Fair warning, Lu asked the identical question on the ARIN list and (I 
>>> presume the RIPE list since he left RIPE in all
>>> the key places in the one he posted to ARIN).
>>> 
>>> It seems to me that he may be doing some form of registry policy shopping.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
 On Dec 4, 2015, at 06:07 , Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
 
 Hi Lu,
 
 1st: I would say no.  There are no followups after allocation and there 
 should not be due to the many complication issues that can happen.
 
 2nd: I would say no.  The changing of network infrastructure should NOT 
 invalidate the original request which is approved. 
 
 
 
 ...Skeeve
 
 Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
 v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
 ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
 Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
 facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase: 
 https://keybase.io/skeeve
 
 IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
 
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Lu Heng  wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I have an policy question regarding the "need".
> 
> We all know when RIR makes approves assignment LIR made if it is beyond 
> LIR's assignment window, while the "need" has changed, the assignment 
> become invalid.
> 
> The question come to what the definition of need, as a young people here, 
> I am a bit confused, Below I have few examples, please enlighten me if 
> anyone has an thought about it.
> 
> First one:
> 
> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, 
> RIR makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under 
> condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his 
> infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same 
> customer, does the company's action need to be notified  to RIR? And does 
> this action considered invalid the original assignment?
> 
> Second one:
> 
> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and 
> has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the 
> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 
> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified 
> to RIR?
> 
> So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as 
> the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of 
> original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does 
> it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, 
> upstream providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be 
> considered as change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?
> 
> What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
> 
> 
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
 
 *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
*
 ___
 sig-policy mailing list
 sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
 http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> 
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Randy Bush]

>>> you seem like a trouble maker.
>> ad homina are not appropriate
> Says another trouble maker :)

perhaps you could pull your keyboard out of the gutter, at least in
public?

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Masato Yamanishi]

Understood.
I just want to make sure you have a right to ask deleting it.

Masato@iPhone


On Dec 6, 2015, at 21:00, Randy Bush  wrote:

>> As shown in APNIC Code of Conduct, you can ask APNIC to delete
>> comments if you want.
> 
> i am strongly against this.  an archive should be a true archive.
> 
> randy
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Masato Yamanishi]

Skeeve,

Please don't forget that I'm neutral for anybody's opinion in here including Lu 
and Owen,
and I warned your behavior calling somebody unappropreately, not your opinion.

> including attacking the Chair when he doesn't agree with them.  Is this what 
> you want to happily let him do to APNIC lists?

Of course not, but I'm afraid you are doing same thing on this list right now.

Masato@iPhone


> On Dec 6, 2015, at 21:25, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
> 
> Masato,
> 
> I don't care if you are the Chair or not.  Do not use your position to accuse 
> someone of personally attacking someone when they are not.  If you were being 
> a fair Char, then I'd also expect you to deal with your friend Randys passive 
> aggressive insinuations - which you never do, so just back off.
> 
> I suggest you go research Lu's posts on ARIN and Ripe over the last year and 
> you will see the antagonistic approach he uses to turn lists into battles, 
> including attacking the Chair when he doesn't agree with them.  Is this what 
> you want to happily let him do to APNIC lists?
> 
> I for one thank Owen for informing us that Lu was trying to start the 
> same/similar arguments on this list has he has done on other RIR lists.  I 
> hardly think we need to rehash the same debates unless they are particular 
> reference to APNIC and its policy.
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase: 
> https://keybase.io/skeeve
> 
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> 
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Masato Yamanishi  wrote:
>> Skeeve,
>> 
>> As the Chair, let me warn you that calling somebody "trouble maker" on the 
>> list is a personal attack and it conflicts with APNIC Code of Conduct as 
>> shown in below.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Masato@iPhone
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 20:22, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Says another trouble maker :)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ...Skeeve
>>> 
>>> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
>>> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
>>> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase: 
>>> https://keybase.io/skeeve
>>> 
>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>> 
 On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
 > you seem like a trouble maker.
 
 ad homina are not appropriate
 
 randy
>>> 
>>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy 
>>>   *
>>> ___
>>> sig-policy mailing list
>>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> 
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Well, that sounds to me you are siding with people not principle?

your long sentence put in short, I like him but I don't like you so I won't
reply to you?

You did already and I guess this is an policy discussion list not political
war ground.

Publically declear I am a trouble maker please provide evidence otherwise I
see it as public defamation.

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:

> Lu,
>
> Owen is a veteran of this industry, and someone who many respect.  I
> appreciate his posting as there are always people trying to game policy and
> and also far worse.  I trust Owen and will be heeding his advice on this
> matter.
>
> I have now reviewed your postings to most of the other policy lists, and
> you seem like a trouble maker.  I won't bother debating policy with you and
> tie up APNIC lists uneccessarily.
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/v4now ;  
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase:
> https://keybase.io/skeeve
>
>
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
>> Lu, as I stated elsewhere, I did read your post, but I do not trust you.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 01:13 , h...@anytimechinese.com wrote:
>>
>> I have explained the reasoning of asking it fairly well in one of the
>> list and Owen just didn't read it and speculate my action, fair warning,
>> read to Owen, do not speculate people's action on public space without
>> ground.l, especially such action was already explained publicly.
>>
>> On 6 Dec 2015, at 5:06 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>
>> Fair warning, Lu asked the identical question on the ARIN list and (I
>> presume the RIPE list since he left RIPE in all
>> the key places in the one he posted to ARIN).
>>
>> It seems to me that he may be doing some form of registry policy shopping.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 06:07 , Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Lu,
>>
>> 1st: I would say no.  There are no followups after allocation and there
>> should not be due to the many complication issues that can happen.
>>
>> 2nd: I would say no.  The changing of network infrastructure should NOT
>> invalidate the original request which is approved.
>>
>>
>>
>> ...Skeeve
>>
>> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
>> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
>> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>> facebook.com/v4now ;  
>> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase:
>> https://keybase.io/skeeve
>>
>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Lu Heng  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I have an policy question regarding the "need".
>>>
>>> We all know when RIR makes approves assignment LIR made if it is beyond
>>> LIR's assignment window, while the "need" has changed, the assignment
>>> become invalid.
>>>
>>> The question come to what the definition of need, as a young people
>>> here, I am a bit confused, Below I have few examples, please enlighten me
>>> if anyone has an thought about it.
>>>
>>> First one:
>>>
>>> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A,
>>> RIR makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under
>>> condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his
>>> infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same
>>> customer, does the company's action need to be notified  to RIR? And does
>>> this action considered invalid the original assignment?
>>>
>>> Second one:
>>>
>>> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location,
>>> and has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the
>>> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2
>>> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to
>>> RIR?
>>>
>>> So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as
>>> the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of
>>> original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does
>>> it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream
>>> providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as
>>> change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?
>>>
>>> What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Kind regards.
>>> Lu
>>>
>>>
>>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>>  *
>>> ___
>>> sig-policy 

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Masato Yamanishi]

Skeeve,

As the Chair, let me warn you that calling somebody "trouble maker" on the list 
is a personal attack and it conflicts with APNIC Code of Conduct as shown in 
below.



Masato@iPhone


> On Dec 6, 2015, at 20:22, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
> 
> Says another trouble maker :)
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase: 
> https://keybase.io/skeeve
> 
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> 
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
>> > you seem like a trouble maker.
>> 
>> ad homina are not appropriate
>> 
>> randy
> 
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Dean Pemberton]

Good Morning,

InternetNZ, as the host of APRICOT 2016 would like to take this opportunity
to reiterate that it seeks to support the APNIC Policy SIG session during
APRICOT 2016 to be an environment where everyone can have their point of
view heard in a safe environment.

To this end InternetNZ, in association with the APIA board, have worked to
develop the following Code of Conduct / Anti-harrassment Policy which will
be in place for the entire APRICOT 2016 summit.

We look forward to ensuring that everyone has a great time.
See you all in Auckland!

Regards
Dean


-

APRICOT Code of Conduct/ Anti-harassment Policy

We value your being at APRICOT 2016 and want everyone to feel safe and
included!

APRICOT is dedicated to providing a harassment-free conference
experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and
expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body
size, race, nationality, age or religion.

We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form.
Conference participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or
expelled from the conference without a refund at the discretion of the
conference organizers.

Harassment includes, but is not limited to:

Deliberate intimidation or stalking
Harassing photography or recording
Sustained disruption of talks or other events
Inappropriate physical contact
Unwelcome sexual attention
Verbal comments that reinforce social structures of domination
related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation,
disability, physical appearance, body size, race, nationality, age,
religion.
Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behaviour.
Sexual images in public spaces

If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed,
or have any other concerns, please contact a member of APRICOT’s staff
immediately.

APRICOT staff will be happy to help participants contact venue
security or NZ Police, provide escorts, or otherwise assist those
experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of APRICOT.

We expect participants to follow these rules at all APRICOT venues and
related social events.  This includes all online/digital spaces.

If you have any questions, don't understand some of the policy or
would like to discuss this policy please contact any member of APRICOT
staff who would be happy to discuss arrange for someone to discuss it
with you.

--
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Skeeve Stevens]

Dean,

This is a good policy and should be the sort of thing that is in place at
all conferences, not just 2016.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase:
https://keybase.io/skeeve


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Dean Pemberton 
wrote:

> Good Morning,
>
> InternetNZ, as the host of APRICOT 2016 would like to take this
> opportunity to reiterate that it seeks to support the APNIC Policy SIG
> session during APRICOT 2016 to be an environment where everyone can have
> their point of view heard in a safe environment.
>
> To this end InternetNZ, in association with the APIA board, have worked to
> develop the following Code of Conduct / Anti-harrassment Policy which will
> be in place for the entire APRICOT 2016 summit.
>
> We look forward to ensuring that everyone has a great time.
> See you all in Auckland!
>
> Regards
> Dean
>
>
> -
>
> APRICOT Code of Conduct/ Anti-harassment Policy
>
> We value your being at APRICOT 2016 and want everyone to feel safe and
> included!
>
> APRICOT is dedicated to providing a harassment-free conference
> experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and
> expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body
> size, race, nationality, age or religion.
>
> We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form.
> Conference participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or
> expelled from the conference without a refund at the discretion of the
> conference organizers.
>
> Harassment includes, but is not limited to:
>
> Deliberate intimidation or stalking
> Harassing photography or recording
> Sustained disruption of talks or other events
> Inappropriate physical contact
> Unwelcome sexual attention
> Verbal comments that reinforce social structures of domination
> related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation,
> disability, physical appearance, body size, race, nationality, age,
> religion.
> Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behaviour.
> Sexual images in public spaces
>
> If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed,
> or have any other concerns, please contact a member of APRICOT’s staff
> immediately.
>
> APRICOT staff will be happy to help participants contact venue
> security or NZ Police, provide escorts, or otherwise assist those
> experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of APRICOT.
>
> We expect participants to follow these rules at all APRICOT venues and
> related social events.  This includes all online/digital spaces.
>
> If you have any questions, don't understand some of the policy or
> would like to discuss this policy please contact any member of APRICOT
> staff who would be happy to discuss arrange for someone to discuss it
> with you.
>
> --
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Owen DeLong]

Fair warning, Lu asked the identical question on the ARIN list and (I presume 
the RIPE list since he left RIPE in all
the key places in the one he posted to ARIN).

It seems to me that he may be doing some form of registry policy shopping.

Owen

> On Dec 4, 2015, at 06:07 , Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
> 
> Hi Lu,
> 
> 1st: I would say no.  There are no followups after allocation and there 
> should not be due to the many complication issues that can happen.
> 
> 2nd: I would say no.  The changing of network infrastructure should NOT 
> invalidate the original request which is approved. 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com  ; www.v4now.com 
> 
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve <>
> facebook.com/v4now  ;  
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve 
> 
> twitter.com/theispguy  ; blog: 
> www.theispguy.com  ; Keybase: 
> https://keybase.io/skeeve 
> 
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> 
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Lu Heng  > wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I have an policy question regarding the "need".
> 
> We all know when RIR makes approves assignment LIR made if it is beyond LIR's 
> assignment window, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become 
> invalid.
> 
> The question come to what the definition of need, as a young people here, I 
> am a bit confused, Below I have few examples, please enlighten me if anyone 
> has an thought about it.
> 
> First one:
> 
> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, RIR 
> makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition 
> that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to 
> location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the 
> company's action need to be notified  to RIR? And does this action considered 
> invalid the original assignment?
> 
> Second one:
> 
> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and has 
> provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the company 
> getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 location, 
> does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to RIR?
> 
> So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as the 
> service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of original 
> justification material was provided, if was the later, then does it imply 
> that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream providers 
> etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as change of 
> purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?
> 
> What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
> 
> 
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 
> 
> 
> 
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

[sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi

I have an policy question regarding the "need".

We all know when RIR makes approves assignment LIR made if it is beyond
LIR's assignment window, while the "need" has changed, the assignment
become invalid.

The question come to what the definition of need, as a young people here, I
am a bit confused, Below I have few examples, please enlighten me if anyone
has an thought about it.

First one:

Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, RIR
makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition
that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to
location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the
company's action need to be notified  to RIR? And does this action
considered invalid the original assignment?

Second one:

Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and
has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the
company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2
location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to
RIR?

So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as the
service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of original
justification material was provided, if was the later, then does it imply
that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream providers
etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as change of
purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?

What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?

-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

[Skeeve Stevens]

Hi Lu,

1st: I would say no.  There are no followups after allocation and there
should not be due to the many complication issues that can happen.

2nd: I would say no.  The changing of network infrastructure should NOT
invalidate the original request which is approved.



...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase:
https://keybase.io/skeeve


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Lu Heng  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I have an policy question regarding the "need".
>
> We all know when RIR makes approves assignment LIR made if it is beyond
> LIR's assignment window, while the "need" has changed, the assignment
> become invalid.
>
> The question come to what the definition of need, as a young people here,
> I am a bit confused, Below I have few examples, please enlighten me if
> anyone has an thought about it.
>
> First one:
>
> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A,
> RIR makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under
> condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his
> infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same
> customer, does the company's action need to be notified  to RIR? And does
> this action considered invalid the original assignment?
>
> Second one:
>
> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and
> has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the
> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2
> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to
> RIR?
>
> So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as
> the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of
> original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does
> it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream
> providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as
> change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?
>
> What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy