Re: [sig-policy] Report on APNIC 27 Policy SIG decisions
> 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.
my inclination, as chair, is the following
the changes proposed are "put in some examples to make it easier to
understand" and to clarify a minimum allocations size.
the eight week post-meeting mailing list review should be sufficient
to be sure we still have consensus on such minor tuning of this
proposal.
of course, we have to see what they change.
does anyone have strong objection to this?
randy