From cjw at groovy.com Wed Mar 6 22:02:10 2002 From: cjw at groovy.com (CJW) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 19:02:10 -0800 Subject: Feedback from the APNIC meeting Message-ID: <200203070302.g2732AY58256@duchess.groovy.com> Hi everyone, I presented an update for Mark McFadden at the APNIC meeting here in Bangkok Here are Gerard's notes from that part of the meeting. There wasn't a lot of feedback but there was some. ---CJ ***************** 5. RFC 2050 revision Cathy Wittbrodt, Address council This presentation was an overview and update of the activities of the working group which has been tasked to investigate the revision of RFC 2050. The presentation also contained an open invitation for participation in the working group. Questions and discussion - - There was a comment that the future of the ASO no longer seems assured and that therefore it may be better to continue this work under the umbrella of the RIRs and the IETF. However it was noted that the ASO is not the same as the Address Council, and that it could remain a part of the community independent of any changes to the ICANN structure. - - It was argued that it would be a mistake to include the IETF in this process as it is a policy issue rather than a technical one. - - There was a suggestion that even though it may not be appropriate to develop the document in the IETF process, it would be a good idea to submit a final document to the RFC editor for publication as an informational document. - - It was noted that RFC 2050’s definition of “organisation” is not realistic in the current business environment. - - The Chair encouraged members of the Asia Pacific community to participate in this process. - - The Chair requested that the presenter report the content of this discussion to the working group mailing list. *************** From sob at harvard.edu Wed Mar 6 22:23:48 2002 From: sob at harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:23:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: 2050bis Message-ID: <200203070323.g273Nme11216@newdev.harvard.edu> > It was argued that it would be a mistake to include the IETF in this > process as it is a policy issue rather than a technical one. as the person who had to get the IESG to agree to 2050 last time, I will say that it was anything but fun - it took a long time and some lawyer time - because some of the personel have changed it might not be as hard as it was last time but it still would not be easy > There was a suggestion that even though it may not be appropriate to > develop the document in the IETF process, it would be a good idea to submit > a final document to the RFC editor for publication as an informational > document. note thet the IESG is in-the-loop for all info RFCs - even the ones submitted directly to the RFC Editor but that said, one of the things that made 2050 so hard (other than a few IESGers) was the fact that it was going for BCP - something that requires a IETF Last Call (brings out the nut cases) and formal IESG approval - publishing as an Informational would be easier since it would not require a last call and the barrier in teh IESG is easier Scott From jfleming at anet.com Thu Mar 7 03:46:01 2002 From: jfleming at anet.com (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 02:46:01 -0600 Subject: Feedback from the APNIC meeting References: <200203070302.g2732AY58256@duchess.groovy.com> Message-ID: <014901c1c5b4$88068b80$f89d5cc6@UNIR> "It was noted that RFC 2050's definition of "organisation" is not realistic in the current business environment." ---- RFC 2050 was written "after the fact" to justify the actions of the Jon Postel "regime"[1]. It was never realistic, in any environment. If Cuba were to become a democracy again, people might first start and look at the allocation of land on that island. They might find something like the following: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space No matter what documents are located to claim the allocations were done in a fair and democratic manner, that will never be the case. The I* Taliban made sure of that. That can be fixed as people route around the tiny IPv4 island. At some point, the allocations in IPv4 will have to be completely reworked, when the I* Taliban has been run off the Internet and put in cages. [1] http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_4-4/ipj_4-4_regional.html Development of the Regional Internet Registry System By: Daniel Karrenberg, RIPE-NCC; Gerard Ross, APNIC; Paul Wilson, APNIC; Leslie Nobile, ARIN "This regime is now well established, but it has evolved over ten years from a much simpler, centralized system. Internet number spaces were originally managed by a single individual "authority," namely the late Jon Postel..." ---- Jim Fleming ----- Original Message ----- From: "CJW" To: <2050-wg at arin.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:02 PM Subject: Feedback from the APNIC meeting > Hi everyone, > > I presented an update for Mark McFadden at the APNIC meeting here in Bangkok > Here are Gerard's notes from that part of the meeting. There wasn't a lot of > feedback but there was some. > > ---CJ > > ***************** > 5. RFC 2050 revision > Cathy Wittbrodt, Address council > This presentation was an overview and update of the activities of the > working group which has been tasked to investigate the revision of RFC 2050. > The presentation also contained an open invitation for participation in the > working group. > > Questions and discussion > - - There was a comment that the future of the ASO no longer seems assured > and > that therefore it may be better to continue this work under the umbrella of > the RIRs and the IETF. However it was noted that the ASO is not the same as > the Address Council, and that it could remain a part of the community > independent of any changes to the ICANN structure. > - - It was argued that it would be a mistake to include the IETF in this > process as it is a policy issue rather than a technical one. > - - There was a suggestion that even though it may not be appropriate to > develop the document in the IETF process, it would be a good idea to submit > a final document to the RFC editor for publication as an informational > document. > - - It was noted that RFC 2050's definition of "organisation" is not realistic > in the current business environment. > - - The Chair encouraged members of the Asia Pacific community to participate > in this process. > - - The Chair requested that the presenter report the content of this > discussion to the working group mailing list. > *************** >