Logo

APNIC Policy SIG Community Consultation - Shared screen with speaker view
Ching-Heng Ku
18:33
Thanks all of you to attend this meeting.
Jordi Palet
18:53
Good morning all!
Ching-Heng Ku
19:14
Good morning Jordi.
Nguyễn Hồng Nhân
19:34
Good morning all!
Ching-Heng Ku
20:10
Good morning Nguyen
Amrita Choudhury
29:20
Agree that a single word should be used to avoid confusion. Question what is the terms used in other RIRs is it end Site or end users. If one uniform term is used, perhaps same term can be used to ensure uniformity
Jordi Palet
35:11
Is not that easy, end-site is more IPv6 oriented, but it may happen also in IPv4. Both terms are needed, but end-user must be defined
Jordi Palet
35:26
In other RIRs we keep both
Amrita Choudhury
36:01
Thanks Jordi for clarifying
Jordi Palet
36:05
but in some RIRs, I had proposals, which reached consensus, to further clarify end-site and “location” with is one more problem
Amrita Choudhury
55:05
But should there not be definitions to help new people in policy discourses? Not all have historical knowledge?
Jordi Palet
56:38
Exactly, a new definition for end-user, so just everybody is in-sync
YingChu Chen
01:00:03
I would like to suggest have a policy hackathon in the training week in APNIC 52 with fellows and participants to help them get familiar with the policy and PDP.
Sanjeev Gupta
01:00:21
Will the new structure (slide 11) be seen as exhaustive? With respect to Numbers?
David Woodgate
01:03:56
I believe in one proposal per point too. Not one proposal trying to cover all issues.
GZ Kabir
01:05:29
Very SMALL suggestion for Sunny : Please number your slides in Bold-visible manner
Jordi Palet
01:07:01
@David, Each proposal needs to reach consensus, there is no sufficient time in a PDP meeting to handle that. Most of the small changes, are “easy”, and is difficult that they will not reach consensus, in the sense that they are non-contentious, so that’s why it makes sense to have just 2-3 proposals. One for the non-contentious and others for contentious ones
Jordi Palet
01:07:18
if we discuss every week one single topic, then we will se if “any” is contentious
Jordi Palet
01:07:43
that’s also why a small “involved” WG helps to make the work to go thru
Sanjeev Gupta
01:11:37
May I mention: The consolidation in 2015, and now, is *extremely* helpful.
Sanjeev Gupta
01:12:13
Thank you, Secretariat.
David Woodgate
01:17:36
@Jordi, I'd support pooling "non-functional" (or "editorial only" changes) into a single proposal, but I do believe "functional" changes deserve a proposal for each "function".
Jordi Palet
01:18:18
the problem is that pure “editorial” are only 2 changes … so we end up with 20 proposals
Jordi Palet
01:18:31
have you looked at the PDF that I send to the list a couple of days ago?
Amrita Choudhury
01:18:48
Thanks for the session
David Woodgate
01:18:56
No I haven't seen it yet.
YingChu Chen
01:19:26
Thanks to the chair, co-chair and everyone. I have to leave for my work now. I would like to agree with Jordi to have a WG or have a policy hackathon with fellows in the training week. Thank you.
George Odagi
01:20:18
Thanks for participating YingChu!
David Woodgate
01:21:36
I point out these points are not generally impeding APNIC business, so if it takes 20 proposals and several meetings to work through them, I'm not sure that is a big problem. It also allows issues to be prioritised by importance.
Jordi Palet
01:21:53
bye!
Vivek Nigam
01:22:11
Bye for now
George Odagi
01:22:14
Thanks everyone for joining this consultation. Hope you have a great weekend ahead
Thaparit Ausakul
01:22:52
Thank all Bye