Re: [sig-policy] Report on prop-056: IPv4 soft landing

[David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org>]

Hi,

After some consideration (and prodding :-)), I've decided to present a
modified version of this proposal at the APNIC meeting.  For the time being,
you can ignore this proposal.

Regards,
-drc

On 2/21/08 7:06 PM, "Toshiyuki Hosaka" <hosaka@nic.ad.jp> wrote:

> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-056: IPv4 soft landing
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> Below is a summary of discussion on the proposal since the last
> summary was posted on 5 February 2008. We encourage you to continue
> discussion on the mailing list before it is presented at the Policy
> SIG session at APNIC 25 on Thursday 28 February 2008.
>
> We particularly encourage those of you who have previously not taken
> part in the discussion to express your views:
>
>     - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>
>     - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>       tell the community about your situation.
>
>     - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>
>     - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>
>     - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
>       effective?
>
>
> Discussion statistics
> ---------------------
>
> Number of posts
>
>    - Since last summary:                         3
>    - Since proposal posted (24 January 2008):    5
>
> People participating in discussions
>
>    - Since last summary:                         3
>    - Since proposal posted (24 January 2008):    4
>
> Economy of origin of participants:               1 from Australia
>                                                  1 from Japan
>                                                  2 from outside AP
>
> Summary of discussion since last summary
> ----------------------------------------
>
>     - In the light of Geoff Huston's projected figures on the impact
>       of tightening the utilisation criteria, should this proposal
>       be withdrawn?
>
>         - Saving addresses is not the sole aim of this proposal
>
>         - The proposal sends a clear message to the community about
>           the need to make the transition to IPv6
>
>         - The projected figures may not be reflected in reality
>
>
> Full details of the proposal, including a link to the previous
> discussion summary posted to this list, can be found at:
>
>     http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-056-v001.html
> *              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
>