Hi Aftab,
I'm neutral position about this.
After policies prop-127 and prop-129 are implemented, members can be received
only /23 from APNIC per one member. Does every member understand this situation?
For at least prop-129, I think that it is an important change because members
will
not be ab
I support this proposal.
Since the waiting list is already too big (still growing) and there's no
actual progress in terms of address allocation to the member
organization from the waiting list, there's no reasonably strong point
of keeping the list active.
BR//Awal
On 22/1/19 6:15 AM, Bertrand
Dear Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.
I would like to share a feedback in our community for prop-129,
based on a meeting we organized on 12th Feb to discuss these proposals.
Substantial support expressed for the proposal with the reason that
as pointe
Hi Ernest,
> I support this proposal but not all of the view.
>
Thanks for your partial support, I hope I will be able to transform it in
full support :)
> The point:
> The last APNIC 103/8 block is a brand new came from IANA, unused IPv4
> block, and it is never used by other user on the Inte
I support this proposal but not all of the view.
The point:
The last APNIC 103/8 block is a brand new came from IANA, unused IPv4 block,
and it is never used by other user on the Internet from other RIR.
The recovered pool IP block is used by other user from other RIR may be.
If the recovered poo
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-129-v001: Abolish Waiting list for unmet IPv4
requests" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 47 in
Daejeon, South Korea on Wednesday, 27 February 2019.
We invite you to review and comment on the
