24th APNIC Open Policy Meeting - Policy SIG
Thursday, 6 September 2007, Intercontinental The Grand Hotel, New Delhi, India
Minutes
The Chair introduced the session and explained the agenda. He also explained the SIG charter and the policy development process.
-
Proposed APNIC community resolution on current IPv4 and IPv6 issues
- Presenter:
- Randy Bush, IJJ
- Presentation
- Transcript
This presentation outlined the APNIC community resolution to recognise the running out of the IANA IPv4 free pool and to realise that IPV6 was critical. It called on the community to provide leadership for technical solutions and to provide input into address management policies. The resolution called for community consensus to move forward.
Questions and discussion
- The Chair re-read the resolution and asked for the resolution to be adopted as written if there were no objections. There were no objections.
-
Policy SIG Co-chair election
- Presenter:
- Toshiyuki Hosaka, Policy SIG Chair
- Transcript
The Chair informed the attendees that there were two co-chair positions, and that two nominations were received from Randy Bush and Jan Zheng. He asked the attendees if there were any objections to the two nominees filling these roles. There were no objections. The Chair welcomed Randy Bush and Jan Zheng to the role of Policy SIG Co-chairs.
Randy Bush and Jan Zheng introduced themselves and provided a brief overview of their background.
-
IPv6 technical SIG Chair election
- Presenter:
- Kazu Yamamoto, IPv6 Techincal SIG Chair
- Transcript
The Chair informed the attendees that he was stepping down from the role of Chair that he had filled for the past five years, and that he was not running for re-election. He informed the attendees that there were two nominations for this position.
Dr Ching-Heng Ku and Yoshinobu Matsuzaki introduced themselves and provided a brief overview of their background.
The Chair asked the attendees to raise their hands to show support for each of the nominees. Eleven people raised their hands in support of Ching-Heng Ku, 29 people raised their hands in support of Yoshinobu Matsuzaki.
The Chair informed the attendees that he was no longer Chair and welcomed Yoshinobu Matsuzaki to the role.
-
Open Action Items
- Presenter:
- Toshiyuki Hosaka, Policy SIG Chair
- Presentation
- Transcript
The Chair explained some meeting courtesies and reviewed the open action items.
pol-22-005: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal prop-035, IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming.
Done. Implemented in March 2007.
pol-22-006: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal prop-033, End site assignment policy for IPv6.
Done. Implemented in March 2007.
pol-23-001: Chair to refer prop-042: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria to mailing list for further discussion.
Done. Prop-042 was on the agenda today.
pol-23-002: Chair to refer proposal prop-043: Proposal to remove reference to IPv6 policy document as an "interim" policy document to mailing list for further discussion.
Done. Prop-043 was on the agenda today.
pol-23-003: Chair to refer prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal to mailing list for further discussion.
Done. Revised version of prop-046 was on the agenda today.
pol-23-004: Chair to refer prop-037: Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data to mailing list for further discussion.
Done. Proposer of prop-037 has withdrawn this proposal.
pol-23-005: Marshall Eubanks to present prop-047: eGLOP multicast address assignments as a formal policy proposal at APNIC 24.
Remains open. Proposal author was not present at APNIC 24.
Questions and discussion
- There were no questions.
Action items
- None
-
Prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy - Introductory remarks on End Policy for LIR allocations in APNIC region
- Presenter:
- Izumi Okutani, JPNIC
- Presentation
- Transcript
Izumi Okutani explained that this proposal sought to focus on measures that should be taken globally in the address management area in order to prepare for exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool in all RIR regions. She provided background on why the proposal was developed and explained that the proposal consisted of two parts, the first of which was informational and the second was a global policy. She said that this should be read in conjunction with policy proposal 046, which would be presented after this proposal. She posed the following question to the community, "What did you think was the most important issue to address in the APNIC region?"
Full details are available in the presentation.
Questions and discussion
- Paul Wilson thanked Izumi Okutani for the presentation, and suggested that the way that RIRs should behave and the different options for the management of IPv4 should be discussed.
- Izumi Okutani thanked Paul Wilson and noted that the presentation intentionally did not include this information; however, she added that she would like to hear from the community about issues relating to the period after the IPv4 exhaustion.
- Ed Lewis commented that dual-stack seemed to be the best option.
- Geoff Huston explained that it was predicted that 46 /8s would last for about 30 months at current rates; however, the issue of dual stacks was going to last for around 10 years, not two. He highlighted that you could not magically satisfy a decade worth of demand with 46 /8s.
- Izumi Okutani agreed with Geoff Huston, noting that requirements would be much more restricted than allocating IPv4 to all 8 individual expanding networks.
- Jordi Palet commented that this was not the best choice. He expressed his concern that the community would be in this situation until the community transitioned to IPv6.
- Geoff Huston said that it was impossible to use private IPv4 addresses to move packets around in the public network. He said that regardless of having NATs at either end, in the middle public addresses were necessary.
- Jordi Palet clarified that he did not suggest using private addresses on the public Internet, but that every ISP would need at least one IPv4 address, even if they were to use NATs.
- Bill Manning said that he didn't think it was necessary to encourage IPv6 deployment, because it would happen naturally, with NATs doing the job in the meantime.
- Randy Bush stressed that in his opinion it was important to work for our community and not overemphasise the use of any one technology; i.e., NATs, IPv6 or IPv4, but to find solutions to real world problems.
- Yan Ma commented that we should expect more discussion on the migration issue. He asked if there were any collaborations with other RIRs related to this issue.
- Randy Bush responded, stating that there had been discussion and that this proposal had been submitted in the other RIR communities in various forms.
- Izumi Okutani noted that at present it was not actually a policy proposal, but a discussion that perhaps might be developed into a proposal for APNIC 25.
- Paul Wilson noted that while each RIR was an independent community, there was need for a global policy in this area.
- Izumi Okutani noted that there needed to be an awareness of what was happening in other areas, but that the community should focus on the APNIC region.
- Samreen Fatima said that he liked the idea of determining the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space, and that it should be mandatory for new signups to have some of their traffic over IPv6 so they are forced to start thinking about the IPv6 transition.
- Izumi Okutani clarified that the speaker wanted to emphasise that a combination of options were possible.
- Samreen Fatima agreed, and reiterated her previous point.
Action items
- None
-
prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy: Proposal presentation
- Presenter:
- Izumi Okutani, JPNIC
- Presentation
- Transcript
Izumi Okutani went on to discuss how the remaining IANA resources should be distributed to the RIRs. She reviewed previous discussion on the issue.
Full details are available in the presentation.
Questions and discussion
- Randy Bush clarified that there were three essential changes being proposed; i.e., that when there were only five /8s left, one goes to each RIR; secondly, that each RIR strictly maintain their policy until the IED; thirdly, that the RIRs should try to make serious projections.
- Further discussion about prop-046 was deferred until after Haitham El Nakhal's presentation due to time constraints
Action items
- None
-
prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
- Presenter:
- Haitham El Nakhal, MCIT
- Presentation
- Transcript
Haitham El Nakhal introduced the topic and explained the policy and how the process would be implemented in a two-phase process. He talked about the status of the proposal in the various RIR regions, and mentioned what Africa needed in terms of networking infrastructure. Randy Bush clarified that the major difference between Izumi Okutani's and Haitham El Nakhal's suggestions was that Haitham El Nakhal wanted two /8s, whereas Izumi Okutani wanted only one /8 to be allocated per RIR.
Questions and discussion
- Ray Plzak clarified that the policy was such that the RIRs would request what they needed, up to a maximum of two /8s, which was to say that if they did not need two /8s, they would not be forced to accept two. He also said that the point of this discussion was that it must be decided what was to be done when the amount of address space requested by the RIRs exceeded what was available.
-
Discussion about 'IPv4 countdown policy' and 'Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space'
After the break, Randy Bush asked for discussion about the pros and cons about prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy and prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space.
Questions and discussion
- Leo Vegoda asked what the numerical inputs for the calculations to determine what would be identical outcomes for each RIR. More specifically, he wanted to know what different factors were considered in determining the address space consumption rates.
- Haitham El Nakhal said that if this policy was not approved, that APNIC would be the first to run out of address space.
- German Valdez talked a little about the situation he was experiencing at LACNIC.
- Ray Plzak said that he thought there might be difficulties, and that it might be easier if the community went back to the gentleman's agreement, and "let it roll".
- Rob Seastrom said that this policy was simply buying time until the address space actually ran out, and that time would be better spent in deciding what would be done when that actually happened.
- Haitham El Nakhal replied that they were not waiting, but that it was important to get IANA to reserve 10 /8s from the free pool for the final allocation.
- Izumi Okutani said that it was important to keep the existing policy up until the final few /8s remained. She emphasised that the importance of the policy was to ensure that at the end there would be a small amount of address space to work with, as opposed to none at all.
- Geoff Huston clarified the issue at hand - that the point of the proposal was to ensure that all RIRs were equally entitled to the remaining address space.
- Randy Bush also clarified the point.
- Rob Seastrom expressed concern that problems would arise due to RIR shopping.
- Izumi Okutani replied that that was why they chose one /8 as the final allocation.
- Bill Manning said that he did not like the flatness of the policy, and that the allocations should be adjusted downward as the IANA pool ran out.
- Paul Wilson said that asking IANA to change the size of their allocations would require them to do much more work than they were presently doing, and there would be a range of other complicated implications.
- Takashi Arano said that without at least one IPv4 address, newcomers in the Africa, Latin America and Asia Pacific regions would be unable to start their services.
- Ray Plzak redirected the discussion back to the policy at hand.
- Philip Smith said that he was opposed to the proposal, and that the best number to end with was zero.
- Izumi Okutani asked whether the attendees thought it would be useful for the allocation of the remaining address space to be more predictable, and whether the proposed policy would aid in making it more predictable.
- Philip Smith said that he thought it would be fairer to allocate an amount of space based on prior consumption.
- Samreen Fatima said that people in South Asia are rapidly expanding their Internet usage, and that they did not accept the reality that the address space was going to run out.
- Ray Plzak said that there was no real difference between being guaranteed to receive two /8s or zero /8s. Randy replied that one could plan to receive that block. Ray Plzak said that one could plan for anything, and that there was no real predictability because the exhaustion date was constantly changing.
- Izumi Okutani said that with two /8s, there would be a buffer of around six months between the final allocation and when the resource actually ran out. Ray Plzak said that it was just as easy to plan for zero as it was one or two.
- Geoff Huston said that he agreed with Ray Plzak - that it simply changed the date.
- Paul Wilson said that it would actually be a very different situation between suddenly having no more address space, and having a predictable amount; e.g., two /8s. There would be no point adopting a conservative approach when the other RIRs were exhausting the rest of the address space at their current rate.
- Gaurab Raj Upadhaya said that he didn't see any reason behind the policy.
- Adarsh Singh said that he thought a much more in-depth policy was required. He also said that he felt using NATs would be the most appropriate solution for India. He said more pressure needed to be applied to have companies and ISPs move to IPv6.
- Samreen Fatima said that the South Asia region would only respond once a panic situation was reached, and they were not yet panicking.
- Ming Cheng said that it might be good to include IANA in this policy.
- Jonny Martin said that he was opposed to the policy for the same reasons others had mentioned.
- Sumon Ahmed Sabir said that it was a good discussion, that he thought it was important to work out how to run IPv4 and IPv6 concurrently, and that he was trying to find out the best way forward with regard to IPv4 or IPv6.
- Adarsh Singh asked how much time was left before only five /8s remained. Geoff replied that the current global rate of address space consumption was one /8 per month.
- Randy Bush said that when the space ran out, it didn't mean that there would be no more IPv4, just that the market model would change, and the pricing would start to change.
- Adarsh Singh asked whether there were any plans to streamline current processes, and whether there was any way of recovering unused resources. Randy responded that everyone was discussing that issue at the moment.
- Akinori Maemura said that it would be a good idea to have some policies in place regarding the post exhaustion policy and trade of IP addresses prior to their running out.
- Randy Bush expressed his desire to get a feeling from the group, noting that there would be some preconceived way of giving out the resources, as he wished to see if there was a big difference. He wanted to know how many people thought it was a good idea to have notification of the date from IANA to the RIRs. There was a strong show of hands, and there were slightly less that did not support this. Randy Bush then asked that if it was assumed the community would not do this, how many people would be willing to do it evenly (same number for each RIR). There was a moderate show of hands. There was no show of hands to serve on a committee to decide what was fair.
- He further asked how many people thought that this was the key question that was critical now; there was no show of hands; and he asked how many people thought it was necessary to make the policy decisions now too. There was a considerable show of hands.
- Ed Lewis asked that if there were going to be a last scoop, how big it would be, as this might have changed whether people would agree.
- Randy Bush agreed that this was a good idea, if it was decided that the community intended to evenly distribute the resources among the RIRs, how many people felt this should be one /8. There was a considerable show of hands. He asked how many thought two /8s, and there was no show of hands
- Takashi Arano asked whether the community needed the local policy at the dying moment. The second question he had was whether or not the community should prioritise for newcomers.
- Randy Bush commented that APNIC could structurally only decide for its members, and that each NIR would need to decide in their own countries.
- Thu Thuy added through jabber that he personally thought that JPNIC's proposal was reasonable.
- Randy Bush expressed his surprise at the sentiment behind knowing what the final policy in the APNIC region would be.
- Randy took the opportunity to remind the attendees that this long discussion should not affect the agenda timing due to the policy withdrawals, as this would only leave two policy discussions for the remainder of the meeting.
- He said that the RIRs might have to decide in their own area, although APNIC might need to decide about what NIRs did with its members.
- Geoff Huston wished to express that the consistent theme was that NIRs should operate consistently with APNIC.
- Randy Bush apologised and withdrew his comment. He then asked if anyone wished him to clarify.
- There was no response.
- Paul Wilson added that he was surprised that the attendees at this meeting suggested they would like to decide on some of these matters today, although he acknowledged the need for discussion. He used the analogy of water consumption in Australia to further reflect the discussion.
- Bill Manning expressed that he was distressed at the analogy of the last scoop of rice or tub of water, as the IPv4 resources are still there, although there would not be big blocks available. He said that he was not sure that everyone understood this.
- Randy Bush responded that he believed that the attendees understood that the community were not talking about IPv4 as a resource, and that the community were talking about the IANA free pool.
- Randy Bush then re-asked the question: whether in order to support the even distribution of the last end blocks was it first necessary to determine how to distribute the last APNIC block.
- He asked who felt that the community could decide Izumi Okutani's proposal without discussing how the block would be distributed. There was a moderate show of hands.
- He asked who thought that it was necessary to have a distribution policy decision. There was a moderate show of hands, but slightly less than the previous show of hands.
- Randy Bush stated that the community could have a recommendation for the Friday AMM meeting expressing what was the feeling from today's meeting. He suggested the following proposal for that expression. "This meeting was generally in favour, but not strongly. This meeting felt that these issues also need to be discussed but this discussion would occur over the next year or two. How many attendees think that this was a fair discussion?" There was no show of hands. Randy Bush commented that he took this to mean "no".
- Philip Smith asked Randy Bush if he meant what was on the screen (summary screen) was what he was talking about bringing to the AMM.
- Randy Bush responded that it was.
- Philip Smith said that in that case, that yes, he agreed.
- Izumi Okutani added that the attendees perhaps did not understand what he was asking.
- Randy Bush restated (slightly differently - see transcript) his question.
- Ming Chen said that it was important to determine what to do with the final /8 once it was allocated.
[Break 4:20 pm - 4:50 pm]
- Randy Bush summarised the discussion from the previous session, and stated that the community intended to report that consensus had not been reached and that the working group would continue to work on the proposal. He added that there was a sentiment to support the proposal of JPNIC, but it was not strong and that it did not reach consensus, but did demonstrate a sentiment toward it. He asked the floor if they were happy with this being reported at the AMM. He added that there was a consensus to start discussing the policy within the APNIC region and if this was okay to report to the region.
- There was a request to have the transcripts brought back, and they were restored to the main room screen.
- Randy Bush stated that these things would be reported at the AMM.
Action items
- pol-24-001: Chair to return prop-046: 'IPv4 countdown policy proposal' to the mailing list for further development by the community.
-
prop-049: IANA policy for allocation of ASN blocks to RIRs
- Presenter:
- Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC
- Presentation
- Transcript
Axel Pawlik explained that this proposal was presented on behalf of the RIPE NCC. He stated that this proposal was to have a global policy for the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) to receive blocks of Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). He added that this did not indicate that there was a problem, but aimed to fill the gap in policy for IPv4 and IPv6.
Questions and discussion
- Randy Bush asked if Leo Vegoda could speak from the IANA if this codifies existing practice.
- Leo Vegoda confirmed that it did.
- Philip Smith stated that if this was existing practice, then the community should do it.
- Randy Bush summarised that the proposal was that existing practice be documented across all the regions and be made global policy. He asked for a show of hands for those in favour; there was a considerable response. He asked for a show of hands for those against; there was a small show of hands in response.
- Randy Bush announced that there was a unanimous response in favour of this proposal.
Action items
- pol-24-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal [prop-049] IANA policy for allocation of ASN blocks to RIRs.
-
prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
- Presenter:
- Geoff Huston
- Presentation
- Transcript
This policy proposed removing APNIC policy restrictions on the transfer of registration of IPv4 address allocations and IPv4 portable address assignments between current APNIC account holders.
Geoff Huston added that it seemed imminently likely was that the community would not have enough IPv4 addresses to run through the entire dual stack process, and that the space the community currently used would exhaust, and that the demand for IPv4 addresses would extend well beyond whatever the exhaustion date would be. He suggested that the real question was how those addresses would be distributed to meet that demand. He further suggested that the community start to think about this option now and think well beyond the current allocation framework.
He added that this policy proposal did not suggest that all address blocks would be eligible under this policy, and that this space needed to be current registered space, held by an APNIC account holder, distributed by APNIC, and that it was subject to all APNIC policies. He further added that the recipient must also be a current APNIC account holder and that if you did effect a transfer, this space would now become a part of your holdings, and that both the giver and receiver must validate this exchange, and that this information would be public
He concluded by providing an overview as to the advantages and disadvantages of this policy.
For further information, please refer to the presentation.
Questions and discussion
- Toshiyuki Hosaka opened the microphone for discussion
- Randy Bush stated that he did not support the idea of buying and selling address space, but the reality today was that there was buying and selling of IPv4 address space. He raised the question "what did the community need to did to make this process open and transparent, and more beneficial to Internet users and operators in general?" He added that he felt that this was also what APNIC and the other RIRs were working on. He stated that he believed that all APNIC members, whether they were NIRs or not, were homogenous, so not applying to members of NIR seemed strange. He also noted that it seemed strange not to allow it to people outside of the APNIC region, or to legacy addresses or prefixes longer than a /24.
- Geoff Huston answered, stating that there were five questions: Firstly, "what should the community do next?" There were four more specific questions, the answers were that the community had not consulted the NIRs about this and during the process of this policy development to understand the evolving NIR position.
- Randy Bush suggested that Geoff reword the proposal to say "exchange with RIRs with reciprocal policy".
- Geoff Huston noted Randy Bush's input and addressed the previous question "why does it stop at a /24?"
- Bill Woodcock noted that there are many similar markets active today, and that the difference between a market where people are both qualified and unqualified was that you would have speculation. He then raised the question as to whether the community should abandon the current qualification of recipients, since that would appear to only hurt our constituents, and only help people who would extract cash benefits.
- Geoff Huston thanked Bill Woodcock for explaining that there are measures that can be taken to make the market work effectively, and what those measures might be in this particular case might need to be understood. He added that it might be wise to gather some kind of information about this before it was too late.
- Randy Bush wished to clarify the point of the discussion, as he was not under the same impression that Bill Woodcock was.
- Bill Woodcock asked Geoff Huston if that was the case.
- Geoff Huston responded that it was possible to not only point at which recipient has to demonstrate the case of their holding was when they returned to APNIC for another allocation, in which case all their holdings would be assessed, including those obtained by transfer.
- Bill Woodcock said he thought there were two things, the question of the qualification of the recipient and the question of the transfer policy. He thought the transfer policy was uncontroversial, but the question of the qualification of the recipient was problematic. He suggested that if the proposal were made more explicit, the controversy would go away.
- Randy Bush asked what policies would be left if one took these policies and those pertaining to fees away from APNIC.
- Izumi Okutani expressed concern that caution be exercised when moving ahead with this, but understood the intention behind it. She further noted that she supported further discussion, but did not support the proposal at that point.
- Geoff Huston commented that he understood that policies might need more time to reach consensus, but that it needed to be quick, or it would be too late.
- Izumi Okutani responded that she understood this and that the community were planning on establishing a special working group.
- Geoff Huston wished to clarify who 'we' was that was planning on setting up this working group.
- Izumi Okutani clarified that she meant JPNIC.
- Ray Plzak wished to clarify the meaning of 'account holder'.
- Geoff Huston responded that a current APNIC account holder was someone who has a relationship with APNIC and does not necessarily need to have a current IPv4 allocation against them.
- Ming-Chen Liang wished to clarify JPINCs proposal, stating that APNIC still needed to concentrate on how the community were going to handle this before entering this situation.
- Geoff Huston thanked Ming Chen but expressed his disagreement. He commented that the industry's inability to make the dual stack happen quickly was not going to happen, and that the integrity of address space was the issue.
- Paul Wilson expressed his concern for the timing issue adding, that although the IANA pool might not hold address space; there was, of course, address space out there, and that this day would come when the market would emerge, and that the community should produce something before this D-day comes along. He felt that the dual stack system would enable recipients to obtain space from RIRs or from other address holders. He felt that this would have a positive benefit of bringing unused address space back into circulation.
- Geoff Huston commented that if the community were really worried about the dual stack transition, what would make us quit from IPv4 could be the price of fuelling IPv4; therefore, the price of IPv4 was not necessarily a bad thing if you wish to transition to IPv6 ultimately.
- Hyun-joon Kwon expressed his support to JPNIC's suggestion for more time to discuss this proposal, as he felt that IP addresses are a public resource and ISPs are the custodians, and it should be used then returned. He suggested that the community should attempt other efforts to prohibit this type of selling. He further commented that the transfer fee was also an issue, and that this fee would be set initially by the Executive Council, so he asked to delete that part from the fee schedule and let the membership discuss that issue.
- Geoff Huston commented that the fee schedule was more a case of practicality; however, the first point was fundamental, and asked whether the policies the community adopted were about the world as the community would like it to be, or the world as it was. He suggested that the community should provide for those who use the Internet and as distinct from what the community would prefer.
- Ray Plzak wished to clarify that the transferrer and the transferee must both be APNIC account holders. Geoff Huston did not believe at present that there was a policy that allowed us to take the resource out of our region. He added that all previous space was, as part of the ERX, inherited by ARIN and with their consent used by others.
- Ray Plzak clarified that multinationals route across regions, so this would apply.
- Geoff Huston stated that while this was true, the account would remain in the APNIC region.
- Toshi Hosaka called for a show of hands against this proposal. There were a few responses, and he asked those who were in favour of continued discussion of this proposal. There was a very large showing of hands.
- Geoff Huston said that he would put a version 2 on the mailing list for discussion and return at APNIC 25 with a revised version.
- Toshi Hosaka noted that the community had run out of time for the informational presentations, but if you wished to find out about them to please contact the presenter.
- Randy Bush informed the attendees that the Lightning talks were presently taking place downstairs.
- Toshi Hosaka concluded the policy SIG and thanked all for participating.
Action items
- pol-24-003: Geoff Huston to put a revised version of the proposal [prop-050] on the mailing list for discussion and return at APNIC 25 with this revised version.
- pol-24-003: Proposal author to post a revised version of prop-050: 'IPv4 address transfers' to the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
Meeting Closed 18:01
Minuted by Donna McLaren
Open action items
- pol-23-005: Marshall Eubanks to present prop-047: eGLOP multicast address assignments as a formal policy proposal at APNIC 24.
Update: Remains open. Proposal author was not present at APNIC 24.
- pol-24-001: Chair to return prop-046: 'IPv4 countdown policy proposal' to the mailing list for further development by the community.
- pol-24-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal [prop-049] IANA policy for allocation of ASN blocks to RIRs.
- pol-24-003: Proposal author to post a revised version of prop-050: 'IPv4 address transfers' to the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
