[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] updated: prop-050-v004: IPv4 address transfers
Did it really reach consensus though? Or was it Faux consensus?
Consensus to me looked like a bunch of people looking up from their laptops, looking around the room to see what other people were doing, then if they liked that person, they just did the same.
No one voted against the consensus, although I wanted to... it was recommended to me that it was not the best forum as people just wanted to get things over and done with... and by the time it reached its final form, with riders coming in and out, no one was clear how it looked in the end.
How could they? This policy is so open to abuse, how could anyone, if they'd through about it, actually vote it in?
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-
> bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton
> Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2009 2:51 AM
> To: sig-policy@apnic.net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] updated: prop-050-v004: IPv4 address
> transfers
>
> I'd like to recommend that readers of this list support the consensus
> reached on this document at APNIC 27. This issue has been on the table
> for some time and the way that the process of debate has produced this
> version has been a fine example of how a proposal can evolve given
> thoughtful input from a number of participants.
>
> Regards,
> andy
>
>
>
> * 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
