Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal

To: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:19:04 +1200
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <CALS-_Oq-JomRRfk=G1+eVYVBHVq6uEAjvEgrw1TZ6PXO5oMmJA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
References: <CALS-_Oq-JomRRfk=G1+eVYVBHVq6uEAjvEgrw1TZ6PXO5oMmJA@mail.gmail.com>


>
> It seems to me that such a discussion may go two ways:
>
> a) the proposal gets rejected out of hand because everything is just
> fine the way it is
> b) the proposal provokes discussion and leads to an improvement in the
> way the Policy SIG operates

Of course, I should have noted that there is a third option:

c) the proposal is accepted as written

My apologies to the author.