Opposed as written.
Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy on a
case-by-case
basis is antithetical to an informed multi-stakeholder community consensus
policy development
process.
Owen
On Mar 4, 2015, at 00:02 , Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com wrote:
I don’t feel the need for every use case to be set in stone, but I do think
that there are better ways to address this.
Is there any reason that adding the following to the existing policy would be
unacceptable to you?
…
or an organization which has received an assignment or allocation from
That's actually getting closer to something I could support
On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I don’t feel the need for every use case to be set in stone, but I do
think that there are better ways to address this.
Is there any reason that adding the following to
Owen,
It just feels like nitpicking and moving chairs around. I actually trust
the Secretariat to do the right thing when allocating resources. We're
also talking about a resource where there are over 4.1 billion ASN's still
available... not that it should be a justification to wastage, but it
Yes, because it seems to make more sense to you to waste everyones time
discussing something that could be sorted out as much as possible on the
list before we take it to the SIG. Good one.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ;
Owen,
That is almost, but not quite ok.
There may be cases where you have the same reason to do this for a second
or third ASN.
Say I need one for an isolated network in HK, or NZ, or KH with a
completely separate routing policy?
The same criteria should apply for the first and 10th?
Good question David.
Secretariat... can we have those numbers?
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ;
