Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments - prop-053: Changing minimum IP

To: David Woodgate <David.Woodgate at telstra dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments - prop-053: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /22
From: Alastair Johnson <aj at sneep dot net>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:22:05 +0800
Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net, Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <200803040607.m2467uMs007680 at burn dot telstra dot net>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <47CCD6CD.4070707@nic.ad.jp> <200803040607.m2467uMs007680@burn.telstra.net>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)

David Woodgate wrote:

As a point of order, shouldn't the final call be made on a newversion of the text that eliminates the references to fees andmembership tiers, to reflect the changes made at the SIG meeting?
I don't think a final call should be made on a version of thedocument that is known to be different from the agreed proposal.

I agree with David. The proposal needs to be updated to reflect the

outcome of the discussion last week.

aj