Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

So it doesn't look like there is a problem here. The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them. Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake. What's the problem statement here? On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George K

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

Hello Dean, We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording. However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multiho

[sig-policy] New Version of prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB

Dear SIG members The Problem statement "Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB" has been assigned a Policy Proposal number following the submission of a new version sent to the Policy SIG for consideration. The proposal, "prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment inf

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

> On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Robert Hudson > wrote: > > On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton > wrote: > There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal. > > 1) it doesn't appear to support needs based allocation

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

> On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Robert Hudson wrote: > > On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton > wrote: > There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal. > > 1) it doesn't appear to support needs based allocation > 2) it doesn't support all

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

> On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:47 PM, (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) > wrote: > > > Hi Owen, Mike, > > Thank you for your comments. > > I'm the author of prop-112. > > The purpose of this policy proposal is not to align the boundary but > to utilize unused space. Up to /29 is reserved for ea

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

Changing or removing the rules is not the way to address people submitting invalid or misleading information. Also I doubt that the hostmasters would be 'aware' of a case. If they were then the question would be why did they approve the resource application. On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Aftab