Re: [sig-policy] End of comment period for APNIC 29 policy proposals
IMHO, Yi and RandyW's comments are not objections actually,
rather good inputs for further improvement of this proposal.
(Sorry for using another terminology > Chairs)
So, why not return to ML for further discussion unless authors have urgent issue?
Rgs,
Masato
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Yi Chu
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:41 AM
> To: Randy Bush; Policy SIG
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] End of comment period for APNIC 29
> policy proposals
>
> I was the one raised one of the objections. I consider my
> objection 'substantial', as the proposal would take away a
> good practice for the general good of the Internet.
>
> yi
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
> To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
> Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 4:17:06 AM
> Subject: [sig-policy] End of comment period for APNIC 29
> policy proposals
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> Dear colleagues
>
> The eight-week final comment period for the proposal 'Removal of IPv4
> prefix exchange policy' has ended. During the final days of
> the comment
> period there were two objections raised to the proposal. The
> Chairs are
> a bit ambivalent about whether the objections are
> 'substantial' or not.
> According to the APNIC Policy Development Process:
>
> - If the objections are considered 'substantial', it
> means that the
> proposal cannot be deemed to have reached consensus in the final
> comment period.
>
> - If the objections are not considered 'substantial', it
> means that
> the proposal can be deemed to have reached consensus.
>
> The Chairs therefore ask the community to help us decide whether to
> consider the two objections received as 'substantial'. We
> welcome your
> input on this to the mailing list by the end of Wednesday, 12 May
> 2010. The question we are asking is:
>
> - Do you think the objections made to prop-080 are substantial?
> Yes/No
>
> For a detailed history of this proposal see:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-080
>
> Regards
>
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
>
> * 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
>
>
>
>
> * 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
>