Complete understand Sander... but a community often finds value in discussing the issue in their own context before taking opinions to the wider community.
Inside APNIC this happens often, especially in the Japanese community who often discuss proposals before taking their views to the APNIC meetings. My intent to bring the discussion up here was to see if the APNIC community had any opinions before taking those to the RIPE list. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service [email protected] ; www.v4now.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Skeeve, > > > I don't agree at all. There may be many who might have an opinion on > this policy but do not follow RIR policy proposals. I brought it here > because it has an effect on the APNIC region and people may provide a local > context and opinion which I or others may take back to the RIPE list. > > > > Any discussion is good, no matter where it takes place. > > I didn't mean to imply that discussion isn't good. I agree with you that > it is. However, anything that happens outside of the RIPE mailing lists > will not be taken into account in the policy development process (it would > be impossible for the RIPE address working group participants to keep track > of where things are being discussed). > > It is good (certainly for an inter-RIR policy) that people outside of the > RIPE community take an interest. All 'official' stuff about RIPE policy has > to be on RIPE mailing lists though. > > Thanks! > Sander > >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
