Person profile
PersonPublic policy participant
The available evidence covers Roles: author.
Source description Public policy participant
Authors Sanjaya, Terry Manderson
public people profile
Last updated: 2026-09-24
Source facts
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Sanjaya reports historical address-reclamation figures and says the process is ongoing; reporting implementation progress shows participation but does not express support or opposition from which a stance trajectory can be inferred.
Recovery of unused address space
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Sanjaya reports historical address-reclamation figures and says the process is ongoing; reporting implementation progress shows participation but does not express support or opposition from which a stance trajectory can be inferred.
Conditions: The statement describes the historical August 2009 implementation discussion, and only one attributed message about this policy is included in the review. · The statement that the process is ongoing describes the August 2009 message, not its present status.
We have identified 2,079 un-routed historical prefixes, of which 122 (6%) have been reclaimed by APNIC. This process is still ongoing.
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Sanjaya first asks how assignment reports should be aggregated and later says either approach is acceptable; the two messages do not state an overall position on the proposal.
End site assignment policy for IPv6
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Sanjaya first asks how assignment reports should be aggregated and later says either approach is acceptable; the two messages do not state an overall position on the proposal.
Conditions: The comparison is limited to the two supplied September and October 2006 messages and does not cover every aspect or version of the IPv6 assignment policy.
And can we confirm that it is now based on /56?
I have no objections to either use the current IPv4 registration requirement or amend it to encourage/require aggregation at the infrastructure level.
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Sanjaya proposes changing the reachability objective from ensuring routability to testing and promoting it, then explicitly says he is neither for nor against APNIC performing reachability tests; the wording amendment and later neutral explanation address different questions.
A proposal to improve reachability of new IANA blocks
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Sanjaya proposes changing the reachability objective from ensuring routability to testing and promoting it, then explicitly says he is neither for nor against APNIC performing reachability tests; the wording amendment and later neutral explanation address different questions.
Conditions: The first message discusses version 1 wording, while the later reply discusses the operational scope of testing; the supplied messages do not provide two explicit overall endorsements or objections to compare. · The first message discusses version 1 wording, while the later reply discusses version 2 and the operational scope of testing.
To avoid the conflict with RFC 2050, perhaps it is better if the objective is to "test and promote" rather than "test and ensure" routability.
I am not for or against APNIC performing reachability test
A proposal to improve reachability of new IANA blocks · Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC members with existingIPv4 addresses
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The reachability-testing discussion and the later IPv6-allocation discussion both contain explicit neutrality while explaining operational matters, but they address different policy choices; repeated neutral wording therefore does not establish a comparable substantive position across policies.
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Sanjaya explicitly says he is neither for nor against the IPv6 allocation proposal and explains that MyAPNIC records delegated resources and delegation dates; the operational clarification should not be converted into endorsement or objection.
Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC members with existingIPv4 addresses
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Sanjaya explicitly says he is neither for nor against the IPv6 allocation proposal and explains that MyAPNIC records delegated resources and delegation dates; the operational clarification should not be converted into endorsement or objection.
Conditions: The APNIC staff description is his statement in the August 2009 email, not a claim about his current employment; one neutral statement provides no before-and-after position comparison. · One explicit neutral statement provides no before-and-after position comparison.
As APNIC staff I'm neither for nor against the proposal
MyAPNIC always have a complete record of resources delegated to the member, including the delegation date.
A proposal to improve reachability of new IANA blocks · Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC members with existingIPv4 addresses
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The reachability-testing discussion and the later IPv6-allocation discussion both contain explicit neutrality while explaining operational matters, but they address different policy choices; repeated neutral wording therefore does not establish a comparable substantive position across policies.
Conditions: The messages were written in 2006 and 2009 and address different questions; the unreviewed historical record may add evidence. · Neutrality on these questions does not establish a general stance on other policies; the unreviewed historical record may add evidence.
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Sanjaya promises APNIC ASN data, supplies first-quarter statistics and clarifies the difference between initial 32-bit assignments and numbers later exchanged for 16-bit numbers; the statistics do not state a position on adopting the allocation policy.
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Sanjaya promises APNIC ASN data, supplies first-quarter statistics and clarifies the difference between initial 32-bit assignments and numbers later exchanged for 16-bit numbers; the statistics do not state a position on adopting the allocation policy.
Conditions: The three messages concern statistics and their interpretation, not an explicit vote on the policy; the figures describe the first quarter of 2009 and are not a current allocation census. · The statistics describe the first quarter of 2009 and are not a current allocation census.
Yes, we could provide data set similar to pages 2 to 4 in the referenced RIPE-NCC presentation.
- 6 were 16-bit (swapped from 32-bit to 16-bit) - 6 were 32-bit
There were 12 32-bit ASNs, of which 6 were swapped to 16-bit. Sorry for the confusion.
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Sanjaya identifies prop-075 as one possible mechanism in the ASN discussion; that limited suggestion does not establish unconditional endorsement of the entire proposal or a change over time.
Ensuring efficient use of historical AS numbers
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Sanjaya identifies prop-075 as one possible mechanism in the ASN discussion; that limited suggestion does not establish unconditional endorsement of the entire proposal or a change over time.
Conditions: The same email also clarifies prop-075-related statistics; those figures are not a second independent expression of a policy position.
prop-075 is one possibility :)
Conditions: The messages were written in 2006 and 2009 and address different questions; the unreviewed historical record may add evidence. · Neutrality on these questions does not establish a general stance on other policies; the unreviewed historical record may add evidence.
I am not for or against APNIC performing reachability test
As APNIC staff I'm neither for nor against the proposal
I am not for or against APNIC performing reachability test
As APNIC staff I'm neither for nor against the proposal
