Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy-chair] prop-099 IPv6 Reservation for Large
I have reviewed the proposals weeks back. I had sent a detailed reply to
prop-100, and short replies to the other two. Ultimately my replies got
chomped by major-domo as I neglected to update APNIC with my new email
address. So I will reply in summary:
I am in support of revisiting IPv6 Allocation Policy within the bounds
of a separate WG as has been proposed by others on this list. As such:
prop-98 - Support, but would like to see this considered within the
bounds of a WG and a subsequently revised Allocation Policy
prop-99 - With all due respect to the authors, other RIRs have
considered this. Mildly oppose as prop-98 and/or WG both seem to be
stronger options.
prop-100 - Does nothing to support the idea of aggregation; Attempts to
wrest control of IPv6 allocations away from APNIC. Attempting to
GEO-bound IP Space for LEAs has never worked. Strongly Oppose.
One Member One Vote. Strongly Oppose. Equalizing voting power between an
Internet Cafe with No Investment in the region and Large National and
Multinational Corporations with Millions of Yen, HK$, NT$, RMB, AU$,
Rupees, etc. invested in a country or in the region does not make any
sense to me. Very Strongly Oppose.
See you all in a week. Should be an entertaining Meeting!
Best Regards,
Randy.
On 8/18/2011 8:32 PM, Andy Linton wrote:
> I'm conscious that this proposal has had very little attention in the
> run up to the upcoming meeting - one person has expressed a view on it.
>
> This may be because people have been paying more attention to prop-100.
> I see this proposal addressing some of the questions raised by prop-100
> in a different way.
>
> I'd encourage you to look at this proposal before the meeting in Busan.
>
> Regards,
> andy
> * 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