[LACNIC/Politicas] Fwd: [Af13-all] Rapport Afrinic 13
aservin at lacnic.net
Mon Dec 6 11:06:57 BRST 2010
Este es un resumen de las políticas discutidas en el evento de Afrinic 13.
Re-enviamos el mensaje sin modificaciones. Si la comunidad requiere traducción a Español o Portugués podemos trabajar en ello.
Arturo L. Servin Niembro
Gerente Area Técnica | LACNIC
Tel.: +598 2 6042222 | Fax: +598 2 6042222 ext. 112
Rambla Rep. de México 6125 - C.P. 11400 | Montevideo, Uruguay
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Jean Robert Hountomey" <hrobert at iservices.tg>
> Date: 4 December 2010 12:08:30 GMT-02:00
> To: "Emmanuel Oluka" <emma.oluka at appfrica.org>
> Cc: af13-all at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [Af13-all] Rapport Afrinic 13
> This is a report on policy discussions at the AfriNIC-13 meeting, held
> in Johannesburg, South Africa on 24 and 25 November 2010. More detailed
> minutes will be posted within the next three weeks.
> Four policy proposals were discussed.
> Abuse Contact Information in the AfriNIC service region
> There was consensus on progressing this proposal to
> Last Call. No changes were suggested during the meeting.
> Addition of Real Contact Email into ASN Whois Bulk Data
> This proposal did not gain consensus. Some objections were that it
> was too vague, that it seemed too specific to one particular user
> of the data, and that the intent of the proposal could be satisfied
> under the abuse contact information proposal (AFPUB-2010-GEN-006).
> IPv4 Soft Landing Proposal
> There was consensus on progressing this proposal to Last Call.
> The following changes or clarifications were suggested, and all
> gained consensus:
> * Policies under the exhaustion phase apply equally to all IPv4
> address space available to AfriNIC during this phase, regardless
> of whether or not the address space is part of the "Final /8".
> * Change the names of the two sub-phases within the Exhaustion
> Phase (sections 6.1a and 6.1b) to "Exhaustion Phase 1" and
> "Exhaustion Phase 2".
> * Clarify that the maximum allocation size of /22 (section 6.1b)
> applies independently to each allocation. There is no limit to
> the number of times the same organisation may receive allocations
> under this policy.
> There was a concern that the minimum allocation size of /27 (section
> 6.1b) would lead to problems with routability. Other people
> expressed the views that this proposal would probably remain in
> effect for several years, that technology changes in future might
> allow routability for small blocks, and that some allocations might
> be used in ways that do not require global routability. Consensus
> was that this issue did not require any change to the proposal.
> Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion
> AFPUB-2010-v4-003 was presented at the Public Policy Meeting by
> Martin Hannigan with some changes. The outgoing PDP-MG (working
> under the previous version of the Policy Development Process,
> AFPUB-2008-GEN-001) had asked the authors of the proposal not to
> post a new version of the proposal to the Resource Policy Discussion
> mailing list as it was past the deadline of 18th November for
> submitting changes. The PDP-MG had advised the author to introduce
> the changes during the Public Policy Meeting.
> It was pointed out during the Public Policy Meeting that the
> changes should have been circulated for review. During a break in
> the discussion, Martin Hannigan posted an updated version of the
> proposal. The updated version was labelled AFPUB-2010-v4-006.
> It was noted that there is some urgency to this proposal, because the
> IANA currently has no way of allocating IPv4 address space to RIRs
> units smaller than a /8, the IANA pool of IPv4 space is likely to be
> entirely depleted before the AfriNIC-14 meeting, and there is the
> possibility that some legacy address space in units smaller than /8
> might be returned to the IANA soon.
> The Working Group Chairs determined that there was rough consensus
> in favour of the AFPUB-2010-v4-006 proposal, but there were concerns
> about the fact that the version of the proposal presented at the
> meeting was not the same as the version posted to the RPD mailing
> list or posted on the AfriNIC web site before the meeting.
> As a result of confusion during the transition from the previous
> Policy Development Process (AFPUB-2008-GEN-001) to the new Policy
> Development Process (AFPUB-2010-GEN-005), the following requirement
> of Section 5.2 of AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 was violated:
> "No change can be made to a draft policy within one week of the
> meeting. This is so that a stable version of the draft policy can
> be considered at the meeting."
> There was a view to allow the proposal to progress to Last Call
> despite concerns about the process. There were comments about
> following the process even though it would cause problems for a
> proposal that otherwise has consensus, and some people expressed the
> hope that a method could be found to allow the proposal to progress
> rapidly without violating the process.
> The PDWG Chairs determined that, even though there was rough
> consensus in favour of the proposal, compliance with the policy
> development process requires that the proposal should not progress
> to Last Call now. Accordingly, discussion should continue on the
> Resource Policy Discussion mailing list, and the proposal may be
> considered again at the AfriNIC-14 meeting. If passing this proposal
> becomes urgent, it is possible that the emergency process (section 7
> of AFPUB-2010-GEN-005) may be invoked before the AfriNIC-14 meeting.
> Alan Barrett and S. Moonesamy
> Interim co-chairs, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group
> 26 November 2010
> Af13-all mailing list
> Af13-all at afrinic.net
More information about the Politicas