You're right that it's just one data point.
I'd encourage anyone with any further information to present it.

At the moment I'm not seeing the requirement here.

On Friday, 6 February 2015, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:

> I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from
> hostmaster...
>
> "We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that
> nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware.
>
> Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to
> walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here,
> please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that
> everyone is present.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Dean Pemberton <d...@internetnz.net.nz
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d...@internetnz.net.nz');>> wrote:
>
> 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 Kuo <geo...@apnic.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geo...@apnic.net');>> wrote:
>
>> 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 multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4
>> or ASN assignment based on the current policy.
>>
>> Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but
>> we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is
>> required.
>>
>> George K
>>
>> On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>> Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
>>>
>>> Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
>>> wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential
>>> member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise
>>> have been able to?
>>>
>>> In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters
>>> ever been a barrier to entry?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:myama...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Dear SIG members
>>>
>>>     The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
>>>     has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>>>
>>>     It  will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in
>>> Fukuoka,
>>>     Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
>>>
>>>     We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing
>>> list
>>>     before the meeting.
>>>
>>>     The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
>>>     important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
>>>     express your views on the proposal:
>>>
>>>           - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>>>           - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
>>> so,
>>>        tell the community about your situation.
>>>           - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>>>           - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>>>           - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
>>>        effective?
>>>
>>>
>>>     Information about this proposal is available at:
>>>
>>>     http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114
>>>
>>>
>>>     Regards,
>>>
>>>     Masato
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>     prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
>>>     -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>     Proposer:     Aftab Siddiqui
>>>     aftab.siddi...@gmail.com
>>>     <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddi...@gmail.com');>
>>>
>>>                    Skeeve Stevens
>>>     ske...@eintellegonetworks.com
>>>     <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@eintellegonetworks.com');>
>>>
>>>
>>>     1. Problem statement
>>>     --------------------
>>>
>>>          The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility
>>> criteria
>>>          and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy
>>>          seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and
>>> clearly
>>>          defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this
>>> has
>>>          created much confusion in interpreting the policy.
>>>
>>>          As a result organizations have either provided incorrect
>>>     information
>>>          to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying.
>>>
>>>
>>>     2. Objective of policy change
>>>     -----------------------------
>>>
>>>          In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing
>>> to
>>>          modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN
>>>          assignment by removing multi-homing requirement for the
>>>     organization.
>>>
>>>
>>>     3. Situation in other regions
>>>     -----------------------------
>>>
>>>     ARIN:
>>>          It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get
>>> ASN
>>>
>>>     RIPE:
>>>          Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in
>>>     discussion
>>>          and the current phase ends 12 February 2015
>>>              Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/
>>> policies/proposals/2014-03
>>>
>>>     LACNIC:
>>>          only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing
>>>
>>>     AFRINIC:
>>>           It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN.
>>>
>>>
>>>     4. Proposed policy solution
>>>     ---------------------------
>>>
>>>          An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:
>>>           - Is planning to use it within next 6 months
>>>
>>>
>>>     5. Advantages / Disadvantages
>>>     -----------------------------
>>>
>>>     Advantages:
>>>
>>>          Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the policy
>>>     will
>>>          make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong
>>>          information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility.
>>>
>>>     Disadvantages:
>>>
>>>          No disadvantage.
>>>
>>>
>>>     6. Impact on resource holders
>>>     -----------------------------
>>>
>>>          No impact on existing resource holders.
>>>
>>>
>>>     7. References
>>>     -------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Dean Pemberton
>>>
>>> Technical Policy Advisor
>>> InternetNZ
>>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>>> d...@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz>
>>>
>>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>>
>>>
>>> *              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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d...@internetnz.net.nz');>
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sig-policy@lists.apnic.net');>
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>

-- 
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
*              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

Reply via email to