Re: [sig-policy] Report on APNIC 27 Policy SIG decisions
- To: Sam Dickinson <sam at apnic dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Report on APNIC 27 Policy SIG decisions
- From: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:15:28 +1000
- Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <49A6A252.7080902 at apnic dot net>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <49A6A252.email@example.com>
- Sender: Terry Manderson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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 detailedin a subsequent email to this list) prop-069: Global policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries