Speaking only for myself, I certainly will be taking all of the comments into
consideration for all policies to which they appear relevant.
I’m quite certain that my fellow AC members and I are able to discern what
fractions of the comments are most applicable to which policy proposals.
On 17/07/2019 16:40, Job Snijders wrote:
(recognising that this thread is less and less about M and more
and more about 2019-04. I apologize for having contributed to a
conflation of the two policy proposals. I hope the AC will
recontextualize these comments)
I hope this is not an attempt to
(recognising that this thread is less and less about M and more and more
about 2019-04. I apologize for having contributed to a conflation of the
two policy proposals. I hope the AC will recontextualize these comments)
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:39:54PM -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
> > 1/ Currently
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:49:31PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> (Note for the AC - it appears that discussion in context of 2019-04 is
> bleeding over into the 2019-10 thread, please take these comments under
> advisement for 2019-04. I'm sorry there is so much e-mail to plow
>
Without bringing some numbers and practical data to this discussion it
becomes harder to find out for example real situations where these
transfers (in the context of RIPE and APNIC) were a game changer and
that benefited IPv6, it may just be a wish to have.
I really don't see that allowing
Dear all,
(Note for the AC - it appears that discussion in context of 2019-04 is
bleeding over into the 2019-10 thread, please take these comments under
advisement for 2019-04. I'm sorry there is so much e-mail to plow
through related to the policy propoals, thank you for your time.)
On Tue, Jul
