If you were to come to Wellington, I would gladly talk with you about consensus
!
Ven 03 mai 2024, à 03:16, Fernando Frediani a écrit :
Hello Bertrand
It seems that you completely ignored this discussion recently and didn't
answer questions that were put specifically to you.
On 06th March
Hello Bertrand
It seems that you completely ignored this discussion recently and didn't
answer questions that were put specifically to you.
On 06th March it was asked what was taken into consideration in order
give consensus on this proposal and you never replied. It was put and
reviewed all
worldwide.
NIRs may well continue to exist and perform their administrative functions
under the umbrella of the RIR facilitating things in certain economies and
cultures.
Best regards
Fernando
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 11:47 Fernando Frediani, wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 07:39 Dav
Hi
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 07:39 David Conrad, wrote:
> Fernando,
>
> On Jan 24, 2024, at 4:19 AM, Fernando Frediani
> wrote:
> > No government should ever be able to mandate anything related to policy
> development and how they apply to IP space assignment and use.
>
>
Hello
On 23/01/2024 20:49, Christopher Hawker wrote:
They play a important administrative role in certain places and
economies, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to develop
policies.
I disagree. As David has identified, NIRs may in some cases may have
legal mandates
Hello David
On 23/01/2024 12:08, David Conrad wrote:
You appear to have an interesting perception of the function/prerogative of
NIRs. You are aware that some NIRs pre-date the RIRs and generally, NIRs
reflect the preferences (or, in some cases, legal mandates) related to the
management
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023, 08:40 Christopher Hawker,
wrote:
>
>
> Again, members define policy (be it a routing policy or otherwise). If a
> community member presents a policy about the routability of prefixes longer
> than a /24 at an open policy meeting and it reaches consensus with the
> wider
Hello there
On 18/12/2023 17:19, Owen DeLong wrote:
I tend to agre with this restriction. It would not be fair with the community
with such behavior. If an IXP applies and receives space under this policy this
could be for a newer location,but not to be used in a existing one to be
Hello
On 11/12/2023 09:38, Christopher Hawker wrote:
1. If a current IXP applies for space under this policy, they should be restricted
from transferring new or existing delegations under any transfer conditions to
prevent existing IXPs from applying for resources under this policy,
This is not a proposal about if Leasing should be allow/disallowed, but
to make something clear in the policy text about what already exists and
is what it is.
Fernando
On 14/09/2022 10:35, Evelina Eidukaitė via sig-policy wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
My name is Evelina, I represent IPXO, the
.
Try to propose this policy in ARIN and RIPE and see if you will be
laughed out room.
So, no, you are giving misinformation.
On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 at 21:31, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
This is totally false information.
Try to Leasing IP addresses in AfriNic or LACNIC and see what
This is totally false information.
Try to Leasing IP addresses in AfriNic or LACNIC and see what will
happen with the resources you are responsible for.
And for ARIN try to justify the need for the resources saying they will
be leased and see what will happen.
Fernando
On 09/09/2022 07:01,
Hello Aftab
Let me address this concern so perhaps it gets better clarified.
If an organization who is for example a CDN provider and asks APNIC for
an ASN number and IP addresses and have justified will use them to
provide hosting and CDN services to their customers through the
t;
>
--
> prop-148-v002: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not
Acceptable
>
--
>
> Proposer: Jordi Palet
afford monthly lease payments?
Please address that simple argument by telling me how the small
business benefits by not having the lease option, but only having the
purchase option.
Regards,
Mike
*From:* Fernando Frediani
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 1:01 PM
*To:* sig-policy
kef>
*From:* Fernando Frediani
*Sent:* Thursday, September 8, 2022 1:27 am
*To:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
*Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification -
Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
Hello Andrew
GRE
that it’s not always possible to get IPv4 blocks from
the company that is providing you with connectivity?
Regards,
Mike
*From:* Fernando Frediani
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 11:27 AM
*To:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
*Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification
airs
>
>
>
--
> prop-148-v002: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not
Acceptable
>
--
>
> Proposer: Jordi P
roposer: Jordi Palet Martinez
(jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
> Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudh...@ccaoi.in)
> Fernando Frediani (fhfred...@gmail.com)
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
>
&
et Martinez
(jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
> Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudh...@ccaoi.in)
> Fernando Frediani (fhfred...@gmail.com)
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
>
> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez
(jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
> Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudh...@ccaoi.in)
> Fernando Frediani (fhfred...@gmail.com)
>
>
resource allocation process which can be easily
understood by all.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Amrita
>
>
>
> From: Fernando Frediani
> Sent: 23 August 2022 17:22
> To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Lea
-Mobile 5G Device
Original message
From: Fernando Frediani
Date: 8/23/22 8:01 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not
Acceptable
Thanks for the clarification.
The makes it very clear that what we
of Resources is not Acceptable
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudh...@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfred...@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
RIRs have been
24 matches
Mail list logo
