Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 22, 2012, at 8:46 PM, Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net> wrote:
> I forwarded the policy proposal to the AusNOG list. It garnered zero discussion. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
>
> Your own interpretations may vary, but that hints at 2 possibilities to me.
>
> 1) People in AU are apathetic if the policy either passes or does not. Which may well support Randy's position that there isn't anything left (policy wise) to get enthusiastic about.
>
> 2) People in AU (generally) are well removed from policy and provided as they have a direction forward to keeping their networks running, then they will just get on with it as their business directs.
>
> T.
>
>
> On 12/07/2012, at 7:34 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
>
>> After consultation with people within the NZ community both online and in person at the current Nethui event, there is not a lot of support for the proposal in its current form.
>>
>> What there is however, is an acknowledgement that there may be a change required in the PDP process, and a willingness to engage to discuss such changes.
>>
>> Randy, would you as the proposer be open to making amendments to this proposal? Or would you rather that it stand as currently written?
>>
>> Regards
>> Dean
>>
>> On Monday, July 9, 2012, Dean Pemberton wrote:
>> I agree with Owen here.
>> If this is really something that Randy wants to bring to the table,
>> then I believe that the chairs have made the correct decision bringing
>> it to the list.
>>
>> I will socialise the proposal around the New Zealand community and
>> bring that and my own commentary back to the list.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dean
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com> wrote:
>>> Andy,
>>>
>>> I think the chairs made the correct decision in posting this to the list.
>>>
>>> While I believe that the policy is without merit and would actually be quite harmful, if adopted, I believe it is within scope of the PDP and that the community and not the chairs alone should make that determination. I can certainly understand the difficulty in determining whether to take such a proposal seriously, as my initial reaction was to see if I'd lost track of time and it was already April 1 again. However, I think erring on the side of assuming the proposer is serious and allowing the community to discuss it just in case is the right thing to do.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dean
>>
>> * 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