Dear all,
IMHO, Yi and RandyW's comments are not objections actually,
rather good inputs for further improvement of this proposal.
(Sorry for using another terminology > Chairs)
So, why not return to ML for further discussion unless authors have
urgent issue?
Rgs,
Masato
-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
[mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Yi Chu
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:41 AM
To: Randy Bush; Policy SIG
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] End of comment period for APNIC 29
policy proposals
I was the one raised one of the objections. I consider my
objection 'substantial', as the proposal would take away a
good practice for the general good of the Internet.
yi
----- Original Message ----
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 4:17:06 AM
Subject: [sig-policy] End of comment period for APNIC 29
policy proposals
_____________________________________________________________________
prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy
_____________________________________________________________________
Dear colleagues
The eight-week final comment period for the proposal 'Removal of IPv4
prefix exchange policy' has ended. During the final days of
the comment
period there were two objections raised to the proposal. The
Chairs are
a bit ambivalent about whether the objections are
'substantial' or not.
According to the APNIC Policy Development Process:
- If the objections are considered 'substantial', it
means that the
proposal cannot be deemed to have reached consensus in the final
comment period.
- If the objections are not considered 'substantial', it
means that
the proposal can be deemed to have reached consensus.
The Chairs therefore ask the community to help us decide whether to
consider the two objections received as 'substantial'. We
welcome your
input on this to the mailing list by the end of Wednesday, 12 May
2010. The question we are asking is:
- Do you think the objections made to prop-080 are substantial?
Yes/No
For a detailed history of this proposal see:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-080
Regards
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
* _______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy