Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
[sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule
Dear All,
While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML discussion, it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for Policy SIG.
Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation? (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?)
Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG? (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned)
Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka.
Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
Masato-san,
Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or Lightening talks for this event? I would love to go to both.
I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Dear All,
While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML discussion, it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for Policy SIG.
Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation? (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?)
Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG? (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned)
Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka.
Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Skeeve,
Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in this meeting. I'm asking about future meetings.
Regards, Masato
2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens skeeve@v4now.com:
Masato-san,
Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or Lightening talks for this event? I would love to go to both.
I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Dear All,
While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML discussion, it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for Policy SIG.
Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation? (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?)
Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG? (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned)
Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka.
Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
OK... so a year in the future... that should easily be dealt with by talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very reasonable and obvious thing to do.
Is it possible for this meeting? Competing event for Policy means there will be little reason to entice people to come .
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Skeeve,
Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in this meeting. I'm asking about future meetings.
Regards, Masato
2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens skeeve@v4now.com:
Masato-san,
Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or Lightening talks for this event? I would love to go to both.
I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Dear All,
While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML discussion, it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for Policy SIG.
Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation? (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?)
Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG? (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned)
Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka.
Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
FWIW, a few years ago we did have at least two APRICOTs where there was nothing in parallel with the Thursday Policy SIG. It meant that the technical/ops part of the conference finished on Wednesday. APRICOT 2009 was one example - for reference. (And tech/ops people left on Wednesday night.)
But we reverted to putting regular conference content in parallel with the Policy SIG following requests and feedback for that.
And yes, if there is clear desire from the Policy SIG to be standalone, the APRICOT PC will pay very close attention to that desire. :-)
philip --
Skeeve Stevens wrote on 2/03/2015 12:04 :
OK... so a year in the future... that should easily be dealt with by talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very reasonable and obvious thing to do.
Is it possible for this meeting? Competing event for Policy means there will be little reason to entice people to come .
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com mailto:skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com http://www.v4now.com/
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now http://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoaulinkedin.com/in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com mailto:myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Skeeve, Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in this meeting. I'm asking about future meetings. Regards, Masato 2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com>>: Masato-san, Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or Lightening talks for this event? I would love to go to both. I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com/> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29414%20753%20383> ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com <mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML discussion, it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for Policy SIG. Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation? (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?) Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG? (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned) Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Great to know this Philip.
We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions and not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.
I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and would like to raise this again.
Thanks, Izumi
On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
FWIW, a few years ago we did have at least two APRICOTs where there was nothing in parallel with the Thursday Policy SIG. It meant that the technical/ops part of the conference finished on Wednesday. APRICOT 2009 was one example - for reference. (And tech/ops people left on Wednesday night.)
But we reverted to putting regular conference content in parallel with the Policy SIG following requests and feedback for that.
And yes, if there is clear desire from the Policy SIG to be standalone, the APRICOT PC will pay very close attention to that desire. :-)
philip
Skeeve Stevens wrote on 2/03/2015 12:04 :
OK... so a year in the future... that should easily be dealt with by talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very reasonable and obvious thing to do.
Is it possible for this meeting? Competing event for Policy means there will be little reason to entice people to come .
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com mailto:skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com http://www.v4now.com/
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now http://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoaulinkedin.com/in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com mailto:myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Skeeve, Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in this meeting. I'm asking about future meetings. Regards, Masato 2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com>>: Masato-san, Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or Lightening talks for this event? I would love to go to both. I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com/> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29414%20753%20383> ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com <mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML discussion, it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for Policy SIG. Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation? (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?) Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG? (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned) Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
I agree with Izumi.
That a policy can be reverted at the AMM when it is passed at Policy SIG is unacceptable. It is duplication, redundant and a waste of time. Policy should be 'reported' at the AMM, but not discussed or debated, as the Policy SIG is the appropriate venue for this.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Great to know this Philip.
We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions and not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.
I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and would like to raise this again.
Thanks, Izumi
On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
FWIW, a few years ago we did have at least two APRICOTs where there was nothing in parallel with the Thursday Policy SIG. It meant that the technical/ops part of the conference finished on Wednesday. APRICOT 2009 was one example - for reference. (And tech/ops people left on Wednesday night.)
But we reverted to putting regular conference content in parallel with the Policy SIG following requests and feedback for that.
And yes, if there is clear desire from the Policy SIG to be standalone, the APRICOT PC will pay very close attention to that desire. :-)
philip
Skeeve Stevens wrote on 2/03/2015 12:04 :
OK... so a year in the future... that should easily be dealt with by talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very reasonable and obvious thing to do.
Is it possible for this meeting? Competing event for Policy means there will be little reason to entice people to come .
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com mailto:skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com http://www.v4now.com/
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now http://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau
linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com mailto:myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Skeeve, Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in thismeeting.
I'm asking about future meetings. Regards, Masato 2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com>>: Masato-san, Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or Lightening talks for this event? I would love to go to both. I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com/> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29414%20753%20383> ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoaulinkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com <mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML discussion, it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for Policy SIG. Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. However, do you think it is a barrier for widerparticipation?
(e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?) Also, which session should not be in parallel with PolicySIG?
(I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeevementioned)
Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resourcemanagement
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Great to know this Philip.
We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the consensus at Policy SIG got reverted.
Wow! as a region outsider; If Policy SIG is similar "in purpose" to what AFRINIC call the public policy meeting (PPM) then i will say the policy chair may have been lucky to have gotten away with that decision Izumi ;-)
In the AFRINIC region, we do have situations where there are few people in the room due to other engagement (a parallel session or people travelling same day because PPM happen to be on the last day), so it could become a challenge to determine what number of people in the room would be good enough to discuss a policy and observe consensus. However since PPM are announced with prior noticed as defined by PDP we have always ensured to run the meeting and observe consensus and such decision can only be reverted on discussion list (last call period)
Cheers!
On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
FWIW, a few years ago we did have at least two APRICOTs where there was nothing in parallel with the Thursday Policy SIG. It meant that the technical/ops part of the conference finished on Wednesday. APRICOT 2009 was one example - for reference. (And tech/ops people left on Wednesday night.)
But we reverted to putting regular conference content in parallel with the Policy SIG following requests and feedback for that.
And yes, if there is clear desire from the Policy SIG to be standalone, the APRICOT PC will pay very close attention to that desire. :-)
philip
Skeeve Stevens wrote on 2/03/2015 12:04 :
OK... so a year in the future... that should easily be dealt with by talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very reasonable and obvious thing to do.
Is it possible for this meeting? Competing event for Policy means there will be little reason to entice people to come .
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com mailto:skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com http://www.v4now.com/
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now http://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau
linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com mailto:myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Skeeve, Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in thismeeting.
I'm asking about future meetings. Regards, Masato 2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com>>: Masato-san, Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or Lightening talks for this event? I would love to go to both. I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com/> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29414%20753%20383> ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoaulinkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com <mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML discussion, it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for Policy SIG. Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. However, do you think it is a barrier for widerparticipation?
(e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?) Also, which session should not be in parallel with PolicySIG?
(I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeevementioned)
Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resourcemanagement
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
I agree. Thats why I was in favour of abandoning the AMM consensus. Unfortunately the policy failed. -- Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Great to know this Philip.
We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions and not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.
I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and would like to raise this again.
Thanks, Izumi
On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
FWIW, a few years ago we did have at least two APRICOTs where there was nothing in parallel with the Thursday Policy SIG. It meant that the technical/ops part of the conference finished on Wednesday. APRICOT 2009 was one example - for reference. (And tech/ops people left on Wednesday night.)
But we reverted to putting regular conference content in parallel with the Policy SIG following requests and feedback for that.
And yes, if there is clear desire from the Policy SIG to be standalone, the APRICOT PC will pay very close attention to that desire. :-)
philip
Skeeve Stevens wrote on 2/03/2015 12:04 :
OK... so a year in the future... that should easily be dealt with by talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very reasonable and obvious thing to do.
Is it possible for this meeting? Competing event for Policy means there will be little reason to entice people to come .
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com mailto:skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com http://www.v4now.com/
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now http://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoaulinkedin.com/in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com mailto:myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Skeeve, Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in this meeting. I'm asking about future meetings. Regards, Masato 2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com>>: Masato-san, Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or Lightening talks for this event? I would love to go to both. I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com/> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29414%20753%20383> ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com <mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML discussion, it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for Policy SIG. Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation? (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?) Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG? (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned) Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Let's try again? What were the objections last time?
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Dean Pemberton dean@internetnz.net.nz wrote:
I agree. Thats why I was in favour of abandoning the AMM consensus. Unfortunately the policy failed. -- Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Great to know this Philip.
We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions and not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.
I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and would like to raise this again.
Thanks, Izumi
On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
FWIW, a few years ago we did have at least two APRICOTs where there was nothing in parallel with the Thursday Policy SIG. It meant that the technical/ops part of the conference finished on Wednesday. APRICOT 2009 was one example - for reference. (And tech/ops people left on Wednesday night.)
But we reverted to putting regular conference content in parallel with the Policy SIG following requests and feedback for that.
And yes, if there is clear desire from the Policy SIG to be standalone, the APRICOT PC will pay very close attention to that desire. :-)
philip
Skeeve Stevens wrote on 2/03/2015 12:04 :
OK... so a year in the future... that should easily be dealt with by talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very reasonable and obvious thing to do.
Is it possible for this meeting? Competing event for Policy means
there
will be little reason to entice people to come .
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com mailto:skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com http://www.v4now.com/
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now http://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau
linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com mailto:myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Skeeve, Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in thismeeting.
I'm asking about future meetings. Regards, Masato 2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com>>: Masato-san, Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or Lightening talks for this event? I would love to go to both. I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com/> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29414%20753%20383> ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau%3Elinkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com <mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML discussion, it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for Policy SIG. Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. However, do you think it is a barrier for widerparticipation?
(e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?) Also, which session should not be in parallel with PolicySIG?
(I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeevementioned)
Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resourcemanagement
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
What I can recall, the objection was more members join AMM rather Policy-SIG therefore the consensus at Policy-SIG is not actual consensus of the members at the event. I hope secretariat can suggest what other issues were registered.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve@v4now.com wrote:
Let's try again? What were the objections last time?
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Dean Pemberton dean@internetnz.net.nz wrote:
I agree. Thats why I was in favour of abandoning the AMM consensus. Unfortunately the policy failed. -- Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Great to know this Philip.
We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions and not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.
I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and would like to raise this again.
Thanks, Izumi
On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
FWIW, a few years ago we did have at least two APRICOTs where there was nothing in parallel with the Thursday Policy SIG. It meant that the technical/ops part of the conference finished on Wednesday. APRICOT
2009
was one example - for reference. (And tech/ops people left on Wednesday night.)
But we reverted to putting regular conference content in parallel with the Policy SIG following requests and feedback for that.
And yes, if there is clear desire from the Policy SIG to be standalone, the APRICOT PC will pay very close attention to that desire. :-)
philip
Skeeve Stevens wrote on 2/03/2015 12:04 :
OK... so a year in the future... that should easily be dealt with by talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very reasonable and obvious thing to do.
Is it possible for this meeting? Competing event for Policy means
there
will be little reason to entice people to come .
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com mailto:skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com http://www.v4now.com/
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now http://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau
linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com mailto:myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Skeeve, Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in thismeeting.
I'm asking about future meetings. Regards, Masato 2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com>>: Masato-san, Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policyor
Lightening talks for this event? I would love to go to both. I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com/> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29414%20753%20383> ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau%3Elinkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com <mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML discussion, it is also big question for me, which day and time-slotis
best for Policy SIG. Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. However, do you think it is a barrier for widerparticipation?
(e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?) Also, which session should not be in parallel withPolicy SIG?
(I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeevementioned)
Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resourcemanagement
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
The Policy-SIG is also open to anyone where as the consensus at the AMM is members only. It also seemed like it gave people a time to get additional input/feedback between the Policy-SIG and the AMM.
-- Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
What I can recall, the objection was more members join AMM rather Policy-SIG therefore the consensus at Policy-SIG is not actual consensus of the members at the event. I hope secretariat can suggest what other issues were registered.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve@v4now.com wrote:
Let's try again? What were the objections last time?
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Dean Pemberton dean@internetnz.net.nz wrote:
I agree. Thats why I was in favour of abandoning the AMM consensus. Unfortunately the policy failed. -- Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Great to know this Philip.
We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal
on
reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions
and
not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.
I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and
would
like to raise this again.
Thanks, Izumi
On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
FWIW, a few years ago we did have at least two APRICOTs where there
was
nothing in parallel with the Thursday Policy SIG. It meant that the technical/ops part of the conference finished on Wednesday. APRICOT
2009
was one example - for reference. (And tech/ops people left on
Wednesday
night.)
But we reverted to putting regular conference content in parallel with the Policy SIG following requests and feedback for that.
And yes, if there is clear desire from the Policy SIG to be
standalone,
the APRICOT PC will pay very close attention to that desire. :-)
philip
Skeeve Stevens wrote on 2/03/2015 12:04 :
OK... so a year in the future... that should easily be dealt with
by
talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very
reasonable
and obvious thing to do.
Is it possible for this meeting? Competing event for Policy means
there
will be little reason to entice people to come .
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com mailto:skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com http://www.v4now.com/
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now http://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau
linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi <
myamanis@gmail.com
mailto:myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Skeeve, Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in thismeeting.
I'm asking about future meetings. Regards, Masato 2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com>>: Masato-san, Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policyor
Lightening talks for this event? I would love to go toboth.
I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com <mailto:skeeve@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com/> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29414%20753%20383> ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau%3Elinkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com <mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML discussion, it is also big question for me, which day and time-slotis
best for Policy SIG. Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. However, do you think it is a barrier for widerparticipation?
(e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?) Also, which session should not be in parallel withPolicy SIG?
(I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeevementioned)
Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offlinein
Fukuoka. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resourcemanagement
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Activity Summary
- 2890 days inactive
- 2890 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 7 participants
- 11 comments