Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
;)
T.
On 24/07/2012, at 6:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Possibility 3) they thought it was some form of prank and were unable to take it seriously.
>
> 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