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
