I would support this proposal.
Regarding Dean's thought:
4. Details
----------
IPv4 policy proposals should be carefully examined to ensure that they
provide a solution to a well defined problem and they address real
needs that can not be accomplished with existing processes.
Discussion of the problem should precede proposals for new policy to
address the problem.
The following process describes how this discussion could be included
within the current PDP.
. A Problem Statement is posted to the Policy-SIG list outlining a
problem or issue with the current APNIC policies.
. The proposer leads conversation on the Policy-SIG list to develop
possible solutions to this Problem Statement.
>> I think the author(s) of the proposal should provide a
initial/feasible solution as the start point for disussion.
Ren-Hung
. At this stage the APNIC Secretariat can comment if they consider
that the Problem Statement can be covered within current policies.
. When the proposer feels that they have a solution to their Problem
Statement, they draft a policy and submit it in a similar fashion as
occurs currently within the PDP.
--
Ren-Hung Hwang
Research Distinguished Professor
Dept. of Computer Science & Information Engineering
National Chung Cheng Univ.
Chia-Yi, Taiwan, 621
http://exodus.cs.ccu.edu.tw/~rhhwangWebOffice:
http://mmc.elearning.ccu.edu.tw/home/rhhwang
