hahahahahahahahahah "...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."
This made my morning. ...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 ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, 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> 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> 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 > > 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 > > > * 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
