Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Dean, Skeeve, Agreed ! Regards, Bertrand > Le 7 déc. 2015 à 18:44, Skeeve Stevens a écrit : > > Dean, > > This is a good policy and should be the sort of thing that is in place at all > conferences, not just 2016. > > > ...Skeeve > > Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker >

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Hi Chair On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > Skeeve, > > Please don't forget that I'm neutral for anybody's opinion in here > including Lu and Owen, > and I warned your behavior calling somebody unappropreately, not your > opinion. > > including

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Lu, > I am sorry to say, but "Same thing" is not correct here, I have never attack Chair before, saying same thing might imply you are agreeing that I have done so before. I meant same thing as Skeeve mentioned by himself. It was not my intension to decide whether your behavior in somewhere else

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > Lu, > > > I am sorry to say, but "Same thing" is not correct here, I have never > attack Chair before, saying same thing might imply you are agreeing that I > have done so before. > > I meant same thing as Skeeve

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Lu, as I stated elsewhere, I did read your post, but I do not trust you. Owen > On Dec 6, 2015, at 01:13 , h...@anytimechinese.com wrote: > > I have explained the reasoning of asking it fairly well in one of the list > and Owen just didn't read it and speculate my action, fair warning, read to

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Hi I think there are few principles we share across each region, policy discussion is about policy, not personal, not political, it is about how to most effectively promote internet around Globe. Any attempt turning policy discussion into political war ground with behavior like siding with

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Lu and Randy, As shown in APNIC Code of Conduct, you can ask APNIC to delete comments if you want. (Skip) APNIC does not routinely monitor or moderate the discussions on the APNIC Mailing Lists. However, APNIC reserves the right to delete or redact comments that contain content that APNIC

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Lu and Owen, I'm doubt that "elsewhere" and "one of the lists" is good way to express your opinion to the Community. Please make a reference clear, if you want to continue this discussion. Masato@iPhone APNIC Policy SIG Chair > On Dec 6, 2015, at 18:22, Owen DeLong wrote: >

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

>>> you seem like a trouble maker. >> ad homina are not appropriate > Says another trouble maker :) perhaps you could pull your keyboard out of the gutter, at least in public? * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Understood. I just want to make sure you have a right to ask deleting it. Masato@iPhone On Dec 6, 2015, at 21:00, Randy Bush wrote: >> As shown in APNIC Code of Conduct, you can ask APNIC to delete >> comments if you want. > > i am strongly against this. an archive should be

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Skeeve, Please don't forget that I'm neutral for anybody's opinion in here including Lu and Owen, and I warned your behavior calling somebody unappropreately, not your opinion. > including attacking the Chair when he doesn't agree with them. Is this what > you want to happily let him do to

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Well, that sounds to me you are siding with people not principle? your long sentence put in short, I like him but I don't like you so I won't reply to you? You did already and I guess this is an policy discussion list not political war ground. Publically declear I am a trouble maker please

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Skeeve, As the Chair, let me warn you that calling somebody "trouble maker" on the list is a personal attack and it conflicts with APNIC Code of Conduct as shown in below. Masato@iPhone > On Dec 6, 2015, at 20:22,

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Good Morning, InternetNZ, as the host of APRICOT 2016 would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that it seeks to support the APNIC Policy SIG session during APRICOT 2016 to be an environment where everyone can have their point of view heard in a safe environment. To this end InternetNZ,

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Dean, This is a good policy and should be the sort of thing that is in place at all conferences, not just 2016. ...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

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Fair warning, Lu asked the identical question on the ARIN list and (I presume the RIPE list since he left RIPE in all the key places in the one he posted to ARIN). It seems to me that he may be doing some form of registry policy shopping. Owen > On Dec 4, 2015, at 06:07 , Skeeve Stevens

[sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Hi I have an policy question regarding the "need". We all know when RIR makes approves assignment LIR made if it is beyond LIR's assignment window, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid. The question come to what the definition of need, as a young people here, I am a bit

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

Hi Lu, 1st: I would say no. There are no followups after allocation and there should not be due to the many complication issues that can happen. 2nd: I would say no. The changing of network infrastructure should NOT invalidate the original request which is approved. ...Skeeve *Skeeve