Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocati
commitment and sounds too weak.
I would personally still prefer have the word "plan", but I'm happy to
follow what others think is appropriate.
Could I suggest to put these two phrases as options in the proposal and
have consensus decision at the meeting on which is more appropriate?
It could be a cultural thing, but to me, "plan" is something that you
are quite sure you will do it unless something unexpected happens.
removing this and replacing it with "must" sounds like you have to be
100% sure to do it and no room for uncertainties which are not intended.
To put it in short, my first preference is have the word "plan", but I
agree to remove it if more people think that's preferable.
Jonny Martin wrote:
> On 6/02/2008, at 7:25 PM, Philip Smith wrote:
>> Hi Izumi,
>> Izumi Okutani said the following on 6/2/08 13:42:
>>> I see what you mean and tried to play with some words, but I felt
>>> putting a word that makes it sound like a requirement gives quite a
>>> strong impression.
>> "plan" doesn't make any requirement at all, as I pointed out before.
>> Apart from in Japan, it seems. ;-)
> Yes, I was hoping "plan" could be avoided in the updated text also.
>> In retrospect, I think your new words of:
>> The LIR should also plan to announce the allocation as a single
>> aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two
>> should be replaced with:
>> The LIR must also announce the allocation as a single aggregated
>> block in the inter-domain routing system within two years.
>> Just delete the word "plan", as a plan is nothing more than a vague
>> statement of some future intention which may or may not come to pass.
>> Also change "should" to "must" - that's a commitment now!
> I like that. I'd fully support the proposal if it is amended as
> you've presented.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net