Re: [sig-policy] prop-086-v003: Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by th
Thanks for the feedback.
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 03:40, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> I'd have thought that prop-097 was a very detailed piece of feedback on
> this proposal. I think that prop-097 is a clear rejection of the North
> American (ARIN) view.
Compromise requires looking at things from the other's point of view,
if we fail to do that now, I fear that nothing will happen (and all
resources will simply recirculate in their current regions).
Furthermore, I don't believe that prop-086 can be labeled as the North
American nor ARIN view; it is an attempt at a workable global
compromise by a number of individuals (regardless of where most of us
happen to live).
I will make all comments about prop-097 in it's own thread.
> We meet in these forums to discuss policy that would result in positive
> outcomes for as many people in our global community as possible.
> Prop-086 seems to benefit the ARIN community at the expense of the rest
> of the RIR communities.
Can you please elaborate on how you think prop-086 will "benefit the
ARIN community at the expense of the rest of the RIR communities?" I
can tell you unequivocally that was not the intention of this
proposal. In fact, as we were developing this proposal, we spent the
vast majority of our time discussing how to make it work for the world
outside of the ARIN region. Our goal remains to pass a global policy
which facilitates the return and redistribution of IPv4 address space
through the IANA.
> We clearly do need to discuss because a fractured view on this won't
> help any of us but simply accepting prop-086 doesn't seem to be the best
> option.
Very true.
I'd like to remind everyone that we (the contributors to prop-086)
floated our text on all five policy development mailing lists BEFORE
submitting it to the ASO-AC as a global policy proposal, soliciting
feedback and partnerships in all five regions.
> Let's discuss face to face in Hong Kong and take it back to the lists if
> need be.
Now is the time for action. I hope we can do more than "take it back
to the lists" again. I would very much like to hash it out as much as
possible pre-meeting, so that we can act in Hong Kong, whatever that
action turns out to be.
Cheers,
~Chris
> andy
> * 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
>
--
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org