[sig-policy] Summary of discussion: prop-89

To: APNIC Policy SIG List <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Subject: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion: prop-89
From: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <gaurab at lahai dot com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:09:31 +0000
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7

Hash: SHA1

_______________________________________________________________________

prop-089: Additional criterion for final /8 allocations (and assignments)
_______________________________________________________________________

Dear SIG members

Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage
you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy
SIG.

Regards,

Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence


Proposal summary
- ----------------

This proposal seeks to restrict the availability of IPv4 allocations and
assignments from the final /8 to those members who are responsibly
working to ease the transition period to IPv6 as we reach the final
stages of IPv4 exhaustion.


Discussion statistics
- ---------------------

Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list:   23 November 2010

Number of posts since proposal first posted:   2

Number of people participating in discussions: 2


Summary of discussion to date
- -----------------------------

    - Although supporting the intent of the proposal, it was cautioned
      that without a clear and acceptable definition of what was a
      "viable IPv6 deployment", the Secretariat would be put in the
      difficult position.

    - The author, while acknowledging the definition issue, suggest
      that one solution would be to be generous in evaluation of
      viable, this could then maintain the intent of the policy.

          http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-089

- -- 

http://www.gaurab.org.np/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk1jfUsACgkQSo7fU26F3X0BgACgjEgfjDBM4RjXMIJE46tJa0Cs
ggIAn3QGxrWkeAVeFWQZ/KPKKliKjkMm
=P4PD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----