Hi Jeffery
I agree with David here. There are two distinct and separate things
that are being discussed here. Firstly, the question of what the
minimum allocation size should be, and secondly, what the 'entry
level' fees should be. The only connection between the two is the
fact that the more space you have, the more you pay.
Obviously a policy which allows the allocation of smaller prefixes
may make it easier to lower, or otherwise create a new class of
'entry level' fees.
These two issues are indeed separate issues, and trying to combine
them both under one policy proposal is likely to result in policy
that doesn't adequately address the needs of either.
Cheers,
Jonny.
On 26/02/2008, at 1:42 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
David and all,
This suggestion seems like a devide and mess up stratagy.
David Woodgate wrote:
And, to clarify my previous statement, I was assuming that any
discussion about fees and membership structure would need to happen
outside of the Policy SIG.
My main concern is that the current proposal seems to be intertwining
these other aspects with the question of what should be the smallest
allocation, and I would prefer to see these items separated and
debated in their respective areas.
Regards,
David Woodgate