j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
I neither support nor appose the proposal at this stage. In order to make a decision, I would like to hear some more information from the author on the following points.
1) Has the situation that this proposal seeks to correct actually been a problem with a real request? I would like to understand if this is already effecting operational networks, or if we are trying to address an academic difference in RIR allocation policies.
2) What was the rationale towards asking for 24 months as the new period. Why is this any better than 18 or 36 months? I would like to ensure that we're not going to need to change this in the short term due to guessing at this stage.
3) What happens if an RIR adopts a much longer time period, eg 5 years. Does this proposal bind us to blindly follow them, or are we still able to determine our own direction here.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Andy Linton firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Are there any further comments on this proposal before we discuss this at the Policy SIG meeting tomorrow?
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Andy Linton email@example.com wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-104-v001: Clarifying demonstrated needs requirement in IPv4 transfer policy' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be discussed at the Policy SIG at APNIC 34 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Thursday, 30 August 2012.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy