On 11/09/2018 2:02 PM, Satoru Tsurumaki wrote:
*
- It is better to stop specific examples because they tend to fall
into discussion of adding / not applying / not applicable.
- I think that specific examples should be stated in the guidelines
rather than policies.
Thanks Satoru-sa
<mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>>
> CC: Satoru Tsurumaki <mailto:satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp>>, SIG policy <mailto:sig-pol...@apnic.net>>
> Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4
>
> Rather than explain each part of your text, I think it would be more
PALET MARTINEZ
CC: Satoru Tsurumaki , SIG policy
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4
Rather than explain each part of your text, I think it would be more useful if
you explained where my text doesn’t convey the same intent.
Owen
On Sep 10, 2018, at 22:16 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
ng.com>>
> Fecha: martes, 11 de septiembre de 2018, 15:29
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>>
> CC: Satoru Tsurumaki <mailto:satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp>>, SIG policy <mailto:sig-pol...@apnic.net>>
> Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Pr
sure that ISPs, typically offering broadband services, aren’t
end-users, as they should be LIRs.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Owen DeLong
Fecha: martes, 11 de septiembre de 2018, 15:29
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC: Satoru Tsurumaki , SIG policy
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4
f the policy proposal is
> needed to clarify the reason for it. You don’t think so?
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
> De: en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki
>
> Fecha: martes, 11 de septiembre de 2018, 14:02
> Para: SIG policy
> Asunto: Re: [sig-
examples in the “objective” of the policy proposal is needed
to clarify the reason for it. You don’t think so?
Regards,
Jordi
De: en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki
Fecha: martes, 11 de septiembre de 2018, 14:02
Para: SIG policy
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4
Dear
*Dear Colleagues,I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.I would
like to share key feedback in our community for prop-124,based on a meeting
we organised on 22nd Aug to discuss these proposals.Many supporting
opinions were expressed on this proposal.However, also many concerning
comment
Dear SIG members
A new version of the proposal "prop-124: Clarification on IPv6
Sub-Assignments"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-124
You are encouraged to express your view
