Hi JefferyI agree with David here. There are two distinct and separate things that are being discussed here. Firstly, the question of what the minimum allocation size should be, and secondly, what the 'entry level' fees should be. The only connection between the two is the fact that the more space you have, the more you pay.
Obviously a policy which allows the allocation of smaller prefixes may make it easier to lower, or otherwise create a new class of 'entry level' fees.
These two issues are indeed separate issues, and trying to combine them both under one policy proposal is likely to result in policy that doesn't adequately address the needs of either.
Cheers, Jonny. On 26/02/2008, at 1:42 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
David and all, This suggestion seems like a devide and mess up stratagy. David Woodgate wrote: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. Regards, David Woodgate
- Prev by Date: Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
- Next by Date: Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocationsize to /24
- Previous by thread: Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocationsize to /24
- Next by thread: Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocationsize to /24