Re: [sig-policy] 答复: prop-050: IPv4 address transfers

[Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Jian

I'm sorry to be picky, but a "concern" and "objection"
are not equal. Would you count those 9 people as "objecting"?

I'm asking this because I expressed my concerns, but I am NOT objecting
and please don't count me in.

Regards,
Seiichi


Zhang Jian wrote:
> Hi Randy and Ching-heng：
> As we discussed before in sig-chairs mailing list, Ching-heng and me as
> co-chairs of policy sig, neither of us think consensus has been reached on
> prop-050.
> I have made a rough count. Totally 18 people made comments on this proposal
> in mailing list, total 81 posts have been posted, there are 9 people have
> serious concerns about this proposal, therefore I don't think consensus is
> reached.
> Quoted from Ching-heng's email:
> "we also can find out 7 persons who concern about that this proposal being
> implemented without time limits and/or justification needed.
> I think that many persons wish to discuss those concerns in the next
> meeting.
> So I suggest that prop-50 does not reach consensus. "
> 
> Best regards
> Jian Zhang
> 
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.
> apnic.net] 代表 Randy Bush
> 发送时间: 2009年5月20日 8:43
> 收件人: sig-policy
> 主题: [sig-policy] prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 
> prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 
> Dear colleagues
> 
> The eight-week final comment period for the proposal 'IPv4 address
> transfers' has ended. 
> 
> During the comment period a number of people expressed concerns about
> safeguards against abuse ("loopholes"), which were not supported by the
> consensus in Manila.  These are being worked as separate proposals to
> see if they can gain consensus with this proposal as the substrate.
> 
> During the comment period, there were no substantial objections and only
> one serious objector.  Therefore, the SIG Chairs deem that the proposal
> reached consensus during the final comment period.
> 
> Hence we formally request the APNIC Executive Council to endorse this
> proposal.
> 
> For a detailed history of this proposal see:
>  
> <http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic-provides/policy/policy-proposa
> ls/prop-050>
> 
> Regards
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> Randy Bush
> Jian Zhang
> Ching-Heng Ku
> *              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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFKE7ULcrhTYfxyMkIRAvwNAJ9ph5h+/4t+hAmnVAr9Ry1tLuucwwCeNADa
9RPbrd6DFA0IXf8OHoAYaME=
=dh6q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----