What I can recall, the objection was more members join AMM rather Policy-SIG therefore the consensus at Policy-SIG is not actual consensus of the members at the event. I hope secretariat can suggest what other issues were registered.
Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Skeeve Stevens <ske...@v4now.com> wrote: > Let's try again? What were the objections last time? > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* > *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service > ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/v4now ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Dean Pemberton <d...@internetnz.net.nz> > wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > * 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
