Re: [sig-policy] APNIC Prop 98
not Prop 99. Corrected message below.
Owen
On Nov 25, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I haven't heard much on here about any of the proposals that were sent back to the list
> after the Busan meeting.
>
> I think the biggest objection to Prop 98 was the nibble boundary and the resulting fee
> jumps due to the quasi-linear nature of APNIC fees (a structure I suggest should be
> revisited, but, that's out of scope here).
>
> However, in the absence of a fee structure change, would Prop 98 be
> more feasible if we made the nibble boundary optional so that you have the option
> of getting your allocation rounded up to nibbles, but, you are not required to.
> (In other words, you can justify your complete allocation to APNIC and then request
> that they issue you whatever smaller block you like at the time.)
>
> If that would resolve the issues and bring the policy to consensus, I'm happy to submit
> such a change.
>
> Owen
>
> * 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