I agree. Thats why I was in favour of abandoning the AMM consensus. Unfortunately the policy failed. -- Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Izumi Okutani <iz...@nic.ad.jp> wrote: > Great to know this Philip. > > We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on > reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some > operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the > consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that > consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions and > not everyone could participate at Policy SIG. > > I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and would > like to raise this again. > > > Thanks, > Izumi > > > > On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote: >> FWIW, a few years ago we did have at least two APRICOTs where there was >> nothing in parallel with the Thursday Policy SIG. It meant that the >> technical/ops part of the conference finished on Wednesday. APRICOT 2009 >> was one example - for reference. (And tech/ops people left on Wednesday >> night.) >> >> But we reverted to putting regular conference content in parallel with >> the Policy SIG following requests and feedback for that. >> >> And yes, if there is clear desire from the Policy SIG to be standalone, >> the APRICOT PC will pay very close attention to that desire. :-) >> >> philip >> -- >> >> >> Skeeve Stevens wrote on 2/03/2015 12:04 : >>> OK... so a year in the future... that should easily be dealt with by >>> talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very reasonable >>> and obvious thing to do. >>> >>> Is it possible for this meeting? Competing event for Policy means there >>> will be little reason to entice people to come . >>> >>> >>> ...Skeeve >>> >>> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* >>> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service >>> ske...@v4now.com <mailto:ske...@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com >>> <http://www.v4now.com/> >>> >>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >>> >>> facebook.com/v4now >>> <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; >>> <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve >>> <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> >>> >>> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; >>> blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> >>> >>> >>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:myama...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Skeeve, >>> >>> Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in this >>> meeting. >>> I'm asking about future meetings. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Masato >>> >>> 2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens <ske...@v4now.com >>> <mailto:ske...@v4now.com>>: >>> >>> Masato-san, >>> >>> Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or >>> Lightening talks for this event? I would love to go to both. >>> >>> I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not >>> APNIC events. >>> >>> >>> ...Skeeve >>> >>> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* >>> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service >>> ske...@v4now.com <mailto:ske...@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com >>> <http://www.v4now.com/> >>> >>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 >>> <tel:%2B61%20%280%29414%20753%20383> ; skype://skeeve >>> >>> facebook.com/v4now >>> <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; >>> <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve >>> <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> >>> >>> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; >>> blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> >>> >>> >>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi >>> <myama...@gmail.com <mailto:myama...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean >>> during the ML discussion, >>> it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is >>> best for Policy SIG. >>> >>> Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu. >>> However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation? >>> (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?) >>> >>> Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG? >>> (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned) >>> >>> Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in >>> Fukuoka. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Masato Yamanishi >>> APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting) >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management >>> policy * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * 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 >>> >> * 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 >> > > * 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 * 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
