I agree.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I do not support the proposal.
>
> Contorting policy around the abomination that is CGN instead of
> recognizing that no amount of policy or other contortion will preserve
> usability in IPv4 and just getting on with the business of
I support this proposal.
I support it because it makes it slightly easier for organisations in
developing regions to get a workable allocation of IPv4 address space which
is provider independent allowing them to change their provider without
renumbering.
But I don't believe it goes far enough. Th
Support.
On Sep 12, 2015 9:27 PM, "Masato Yamanishi" wrote:
> Dear colleagues
>
> Version 3 of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria,
> reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the
> APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).
>
> This proposal will now move to the next
Please stop attempting to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Let's use this list to discuss policy and issues and leave personal attacks
where they should be - in the gutter.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
but i'll leave the ad homina to experts such as you and owen and try to
> get back to issues. someone too shy to post here suggest
I've decided to stand down as chair of the APNIC Policy SIG. I'm doing this
for a number of reasons which I'll go into in this mail. I was not able to
attend APNIC38 as I am currently in the UK but to be honest even if I'd
been in New Zealand I'm not sure that I would have made the trip to
Brisbane
Masato and I met up at the recent ICANN meeting in London and discussed the
chairing of the next meeting. I'm in the UK for several months and will be
at the time of the next meeting.
We've agreed that I won't make the trek to Brisbane from the UK and that he
will chair the sessions at APNIC38. We
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> All,
>
> I support Izumi in this concern.
>
> I agree that electronic measurement is a good idea... BUT, yes, people
> will think it is a vote. If the Chairs go against this 'vote', people will
> get grumpy and there will be all sorts of i
Dear colleagues
The four-week final comment period for the proposal 'Allocate 1.0.0.0/24
and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs as Research Prefixes' has ended.
During the comment period there were no objections raised to the
proposal. The Chairs therefore deem that consensus has been maintained
on the p
Dear colleagues
Version 2 of prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default
allocation size, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 37 Policy SIG.
Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy
SIG mailing list for further discussion.
Proposal details
Dear colleagues
Version 1 of prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC
Labs as Research Prefixes, reached consensus at the APNIC 37 Policy SIG
and later at the APNIC Member Meeting.
This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
Development Process and is being
I don't comment on policy proposals as I believe that in my role as chair
neutrality is very important.
I am going to comment on this matter as I believe that having all the
policy in one document would make my task as chair more straightforward.
I think this option of one document with separate
Dear SIG members
A new version of the proposal "prop-111 Request-based expansion of IPv6
default allocation size" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-111
You are encouraged to express y
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Andy Linton wrote:
> Dear SIG members
>
> The proposal "prop-110v001: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support
> DNS Infrastructure" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will
> be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 37 i
14 matches
Mail list logo
