Hi, On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > I oppose both policies. > > For 2015-04 it's obvious, a policy that is supposed to arrange my hair > nicer would make me bold. You either do a cosmetic reorganisation or > important changes which should never be added just like that, as some > changes are minor and shouldn't be discussed (but in a different policy) > > As for 2016-03 I think we should set our goals right. Isn't everybody > saying that IPv4 is dead for over 4 years already ? Isn't everybody saying > that the only way forward is to IPv6 and exhausting RIPE's available pool > sooner would help people move to IPv6 ?
Please do NOT mix comments to different policies into an e-mail that
has a Subject: that says "2016-03".
This makes it MUCH harder for the chairs to go back to the mail archives
later on and see who said what regarding a specific proposal - and then,
if I cannot remember "oh, there was a comment about 2015-04 in a 2016-03
thread", you're going to complain that I have ignored your comment. Right?
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
