It was MEASURED. In the meeting, as the chair, I took a vote for every proposal.
70-80% of participants agreed with each proposal and no one or just one person
disagreed, depending on the proposal. Then, everytime I confirmed
that we reached consensus with those results of votes.
Regards,
Takashi Arano
At 13:04 04/03/02, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Takashi and all,
>
> How was a consensus determined for Prop-014IPv4 min allocation size (P)
>or for that matter any other "Prop" in this report?
>
> Our members cannot seem to find any Measured Consensus
>on any of the proposals in this report... So is this report another
>reflection of an ICANN style "Declaired-yet-not-measured-Consensus?
>
>Takashi Arano wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Thank you for your cooperation in the Address Policy SIG at KL.
> > Here is a SIG report I presented in the member meeting(AMM),
> > where all proposals were approved to move to ML discussion.
> > Please refer to the original drafts for details of each proposals and
> > presentations.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Takashi Arano
> > ----
> > Overview
> > 11 topics in 3 sessions, including 6 proposals
> > 98 attendance in first session, 88 in second and 73 in last
> > Long, tough but fruitful discussions reached several rough consensus.
> > Size and shape of room was quite appropriate for discussion
> >
> > ----
> > Prop-013Multiple discreet networks (P)
> > Allows multiple APNIC accounts which have discrete networks to be
> merged into one
> >
> > Action Item added
> > pol-17-001: Proposer to resubmit a modified version of the proposal
> > (prop-013-v001) to the mailing list. The rewritten proposal will
> > define multiple discreet networks and consider the HD ratio for
> > sub-allocating address blocks
> >
> > ----
> > Prop-014IPv4 min allocation size (P)
> > Lower minimum allocation to /21 with lower eligibility criteria
> > - immediate need of /23 and
> > - a detailed plan for /22 in a year
> >
> > Consensus reached to proceed to AMM and ML
> >
> > Action Item added
> > pol-17-005: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal
> > process,
> > secretariat to implement the proposal to reduce the minimum initial
> > allocation size
> > to /21 and to lower the criteria for an initial allocation to demonstrate
> > an immediate need for a /23 and use of a /22 within one year (prop-014-v001).
> >
> > ----
> > Prop-015IPv6 allocation to closed network (P)
> > Allows IPv6 allocations to closed network, if the other criteria are met
> >
> > Consensus reached to proceed to AMM and ML
> >
> > Action Item added
> > pol-17-003: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal
> > process,
> > APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to permit allocation of IPv6
> > address space to closed networks (prop-015-v001).
> >
> > ----
> > Prop-016IPv6 allocation to v4 network (P)
> > - Allows IPv4 infrastructure to be considered during IPv6 request process
> > - Proposer clarified the current policy document and proposed specific
> > changes in it
> > - Amendment proposal which requires 2 year usage plan was suggested
> > and supported by audience
> >
> > Consensus points to proceed to AMM and ML
> >
> > Action Item added
> > pol-17-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal
> > process, Secretariat to implement the proposal (prop-016-v001), with the
> > modification that
> > there is an added a requirement for LIRs to have plan to move some of their
> > customers from IPv4 to within two years.
> >
> > -----
> > Prop-017Recovery of address space (P)
> > Attempts to recover unused historical IPv4 addresses
> > APNIC secretariat will identify and recover unused resources.
> > If APNIC can’t contact the resource holder, resources will be put into
> > “unused” pool after one year.
> >
> > Consensus reached to proceed to AMM and ML
> >
> > Action Item added
> > pol-17-006: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal
> > process,
> > APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to recover unused address space
> > (prop-017-v001).
> >
> > -----
> > Informational
> >
> > - IPv6 Guideline
> > Action Item added
> > pol-17-004: Secretariat to edit and publish the IPv6 guidelines document on
> > the sig-policy maililng list.
> >
> > - Subsequent allocation in DSL/cable guideline
> > Action Item added
> > pol-17-007: Secretariat to call for volunteers of new WG to review the
> > current DSL/cable guideline
> >
> > - LIR IPv6 requirement
> > - Updates of IPv6 address experiment in JP
> > - NAT is evil
> >
> > -----
> > Open Action Items checked
> > - All action items have been cleared except the following
> > - Action add-16-008: Proposer to resubmit revised IXP proposal
> > dealing with remaining proposal elements, such as fee waiver (which had
> > been withdrawn during discussion), characteristics (which became ambiguous
> > with withdrawal of fee portions), and combined IPv4 and IPv6 assignments
> > (which were not fully discussed).
> > - Secretariat to check the proposer
> >
> > ------
> >
> > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> > _______________________________________________
> > sig-policy mailing list
> > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
>"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
> Pierre Abelard
>
>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
>liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
>===============================================================
>Updated 1/26/04
>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
>IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
> Registered Email addr with the USPS
>Contact Number: 214-244-4827