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

["Ching-Heng" <chku@twnic.net.tw>]

Dear All,

As a co-chiar of Policy SIG, I understnand and agree with Jian's opinion.

I hope we still have the opportunity to discuss all the concerns and reach 
the concensus in the next meeting.

Ching-Heng

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zhang Jian" <zhangjian@cnnic.cn>
To: "'Randy Bush'" <randy@psg.com>; "'Ching-Heng'" <chku@twnic.net.tw>
Cc: "'sig-policy'" <sig-policy@apnic.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:36 PM
Subject: 湘葩: [sig-policy] prop-050: IPv4 address transfers


Hi Randy and Ching-hengㄩ
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


-----蚘璃埻璃-----
楷璃: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.
apnic.net] 測桶 Randy Bush
楷冞奀潔: 2009爛5堎20゜ 8:43
彶璃: sig-policy
翋枙: [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