Re: [sig-policy] Report on APNIC 27 Policy SIG decisions
Hi Sam,
I have a procedural question, in yesterdays policy sig prop-69 was
deemed to have reached consensus. However the presenter and co-author
after being asked a question (post consensus) said he would take the
policy back to his co-authors to include wording and examples on
minimum allocations. as below:
---------
IZUMI OKUTANI: Can I ask a question? So are you going to define the
minimum size for this or how do you address that point that I raised
earlier?
AXEL PAWLIK: I will take that back to the author's group. We can
certainly put in some examples to make it easier to understand and
something like that.
IZUMI OKUTANI: At the minimum allocation size as well.
AXEL PAWLIK: We can, yeah.
--------
My interpretation is that this would abrogate the consensus call and
mean the policy would be re-drafted and returned to the mailing list
to complete the policy life-cycle, or require a further consensus call
based on actual wording defined at the meeting, as demonstrated in the
collaborative efforts of prop-50.
I accept that this is a global policy, and requires convergence in all
the RIR policy processes - however I don't see that as a substantive
reason to bypass due process, if my interpretation is correct.
Please clarify.
Cheers
Terry
On 27/02/2009, at 12:08 AM, Sam Dickinson wrote:
The following proposals reached consensus:
prop-050: IPv4 address transfers (with modifications to be
detailed
in a subsequent email to this list)
prop-069: Global policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 blocks
to Regional Internet Registries