Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to
And, to clarify my previous statement, I was assuming that any
discussion about fees and membership structure would need to happen
outside of the Policy SIG.
My main concern is that the current proposal seems to be intertwining
these other aspects with the question of what should be the smallest
allocation, and I would prefer to see these items separated and
debated in their respective areas.
At 01:03 PM 26/02/2008, Randy Bush wrote:
> In particular, if the proposal has now changed towards a minimum
> allocation of a /22 - only half that of the current /21 - then it is
> not clear to me that a new membership tier is required. If the
> current fee structure is considered prohibitive, then I would suggest
> that the fees should be reviewed first before seeking alterations to
> the membership structure.
<personal opinion not discussed with other co-chairs>
i am hesitant to have the policy sig get into the fee structure, as the
bylaws are clear that this is an EC function/responsibility. i would
hope we can find a path to discuss allocation and other policies without
getting into either the fee structure or rir operational details.