Re: [sig-policy] Report on APNIC 27 Policy SIG decisions
- To: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Report on APNIC 27 Policy SIG decisions
- From: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:07:36 +1000
- Cc: Sam Dickinson <sam at apnic dot net>, sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <m24oyg4p9a.wl%randy at psg dot com>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <49A6A252.firstname.lastname@example.org> <C17BE799-4E30-495B-A351-59A2CDDE0F0A@terrym.net> <email@example.com>
- Sender: Terry Manderson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Hi Randy, On 27/02/2009, at 11:55 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
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.
I'm concerned with the details given that it appeared (and I can only base this on transcripts) that neither my nor Gaurab's concerns from the mailing list were responded to on the mailing list nor in the presentation. (and unfortunately I was subject to network variances and I couldn't remind the policy sig of the concerns at the time)
the eight week post-meeting mailing list review should be sufficientto be sure we still have consensus on such minor tuning of this proposal.
Provided that those changes are posted to the mailing list before the end of next week (6th march), allowing 7 weeks to review and comment, otherwise the the policy (in my opinion) should again seek consensus at the next member meeting such that due process is adhered to.
of course, we have to see what they change. does anyone have strong objection to this?
Not strong objection, strong concern would be a preferred description. I think these issues should be well scrutinised and short cuts should be avoided.