Actually, after seeing the clarifications provided to Dean, I now oppose this proposal as written.
Owen > On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:21 , Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Regarding prop-113, I saw 3 very simple support and 1 clarification without > any negative comment. > Isn't there any concern or negative comment? > > Dean> > Can you express your view after clarification? > > Aflab and Skeeve> > If prop-113 will reach consensus but prop-114 will not, is it acceptable > initial approach to implement only prop-113? > Or, these are inseparable policies? > > Regards, > Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting) > > > 2015-02-03 22:18 GMT-06:00 Sanjeev Gupta <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" > has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > Support. > > -- > Sanjeev Gupta > +65 98551208 <tel:%2B65%2098551208> http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane > <http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane> > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy> > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
