On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:47 PM, (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏)
fujis...@syce.net wrote:
Hi Owen, Mike,
Thank you for your comments.
I'm the author of prop-112.
The purpose of this policy proposal is not to align the boundary but
to utilize unused space. Up to /29 is reserved
On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Robert Hudson hud...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz
mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote:
There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal.
1) it doesn't appear to support needs based
On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Robert Hudson hud...@gmail.com
mailto:hud...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz
mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote:
There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal.
1) it doesn't appear to
Changing or removing the rules is not the way to address people submitting
invalid or misleading information.
Also I doubt that the hostmasters would be 'aware' of a case. If they were
then the question would be why did they approve the resource application.
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015,
Hello Dean,
We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to
apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have
interpreted the policy wording.
However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do
contact APNIC, and those who are not
