Trying to catch up on mail... On 2 mar 2007, at 10.03, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Regarding the Policy SIG yesterday and more specifically proposal 042, after getting some more feedback from some other folks and also sleeping on it,I've to raise some concerns. I know measuring consensus is not easy, but clearly consensus is notunanimity and there was a clear superior number of people in favor thanopposing the proposal.
Superior number is not the same as consensus AFAIK but I will leave that to the chair to decide. That's why we have chairs :-)
Furthermore, there were no negative comments in the mail exploder since itwas presented.
No, but there where quite a few in the meeting. I will just repeat my own opinion here...I am certainly not in favour of arbitrarily chosen numbers in policies, and I have voiced concerns in other regions of the 200 rule. That said, the more we discuss this and the more I think of this I really can't come up with a better rule or a better wording.
Also, really, really, really prefer the old tradition we had in policy making - at least in the RIPE region - where people brought their own experiences, presented them and made their case, and we then formed policy. Changing policies just for the change is bad. We want these policies to be stable over time and help the RIRs achieve their two over-all goals "Aggregation and preservation". Just removing the plans for 200 customers meets neither.
Last, in the room I asked how many of the people that voted for the abolishment of the 200 rule had actually tried to make an application for IPv6 space from APNIC and noone raised their hand. Now I do realise that culture, language and my tendency to speak extremely fast could/would have affected my straw poll. That said, I still would like to see real life problems described so that we can better understand what problem we are trying to fix. So APNIC members that don't meet the current policy - PLEASE provide us with stories...
- kurtis -