On Wednesday, July 11, 2012, wrote:
Actually, I think that this proposal is more than just to incite thinking, it actually
has merit. �The v4 space is functionally all assigned. �Many/Most of the existing policies
are focused on events that are no longer relevent. �new policies, if any, should ensure
accurate recording of stewardship. � It would make an ISP's life -MUCH- simpler.
/bill
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 03:53:19PM +1200, Dean Pemberton wrote:
> So let me ask a simple question.
>
> Do people think that there is a need to develop any more IP policies? �Or
> are all the policies we have the moment sufficient for the future?
>
> Dean
>
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>
> > I think Randy's taking the wrong tactic with this.
> >
> > Policy needs to be a series of no-rules cage fights or, maybe, something
> > along the line of gladiator traditions in Roman time.
> >
> > Then it could be televised, a profit made and APNIC run from that profit
> > rather than charging for IP addresses and ASes.
> >
> > MMC
> >
> > On 09/07/2012, at 6:08 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > > Morning all,
> > >
> > > Randy Bush (from IIJ in Japan) has just tabled a policy for discussion
> > > at the August APNIC members meeting.
> > > Essentially if passed this would see the APNIC policy development
> > > process disolved.
> > >
> > > I'm interested in feedback that people on this list may have, and I'm
> > > happy to pass it along on the sig-policy list or in person at the
> > > meeting.
> > > As always, feel free to contribute to what I'm sure will be heated
> > > discussion on the APNIC sig-policy list. �I'll try and summarise the
> > > happenings back here.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Andy Linton <asjl@lpnz.org>
> > > Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM
> > > Subject: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
> > > To: SIG policy <sig-policy@apnic.net>
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear SIG members
> > >
> > > The proposal "prop-103-v001: �A Final IP Address Policy Proposal" has
> > > been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
> > >
> > > It will be discussed at the Policy SIG at APNIC 34 in Phnom Penh,
> > > Cambodia, Thursday, 30 August 2012.
> > >
> > > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> > > before the meeting.
> > >
> > > The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> > > important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> > > express your views on the proposal:
> > >
> > > � � � � �- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> > > � � � � �- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
> > > � � � � � �so, tell the community about your situation.
> > > � � � � �- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
> > > � � � � �- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> > > � � � � �- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
> > > � � � � � �effective?
> > >
> > > Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
> > >
> > > � � � � � �https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-103
> > >
> > > Andy, Skeeve, Masato
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Author: Randy Bush
> > > � � � � <randy@psg.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. Introduction
> > > -------------------
> > >
> > > IPv4 is history, with no need to add more pol> > > NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz <javascript:;>
> > > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog