|
|
Hi Sam,I have a procedural question, in yesterdays policy sig prop-69 was deemed to have reached consensus. However the presenter and co-author after being asked a question (post consensus) said he would take the policy back to his co-authors to include wording and examples on minimum allocations. as below:
---------IZUMI OKUTANI: Can I ask a question? So are you going to define the minimum size for this or how do you address that point that I raised earlier?
AXEL PAWLIK: I will take that back to the author's group. We can certainly put in some examples to make it easier to understand and something like that.
IZUMI OKUTANI: At the minimum allocation size as well. AXEL PAWLIK: We can, yeah. --------My interpretation is that this would abrogate the consensus call and mean the policy would be re-drafted and returned to the mailing list to complete the policy life-cycle, or require a further consensus call based on actual wording defined at the meeting, as demonstrated in the collaborative efforts of prop-50.
I accept that this is a global policy, and requires convergence in all the RIR policy processes - however I don't see that as a substantive reason to bypass due process, if my interpretation is correct.
Please clarify. Cheers Terry On 27/02/2009, at 12:08 AM, Sam Dickinson wrote:
The following proposals reached consensus:prop-050: IPv4 address transfers (with modifications to be detailedin a subsequent email to this list) prop-069: Global policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries