Let's try again?  What were the objections last time?

...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 Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Dean Pemberton <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I agree.  Thats why I was in favour of abandoning the AMM consensus.
> Unfortunately the policy failed.
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> [email protected]
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Izumi Okutani <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Great to know this Philip.
> >
> > We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on
> > reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some
> > operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the
> > consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that
> > consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions and
> > not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.
> >
> > I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and would
> > like to raise this again.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Izumi
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
> >> FWIW, a few years ago we did have at least two APRICOTs where there was
> >> nothing in parallel with the Thursday Policy SIG. It meant that the
> >> technical/ops part of the conference finished on Wednesday. APRICOT 2009
> >> was one example - for reference. (And tech/ops people left on Wednesday
> >> night.)
> >>
> >> But we reverted to putting regular conference content in parallel with
> >> the Policy SIG following requests and feedback for that.
> >>
> >> And yes, if there is clear desire from the Policy SIG to be standalone,
> >> the APRICOT PC will pay very close attention to that desire. :-)
> >>
> >> philip
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> Skeeve Stevens wrote on 2/03/2015 12:04 :
> >>> OK... so a year in the future...   that should easily be dealt with by
> >>> talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very reasonable
> >>> and obvious thing to do.
> >>>
> >>> Is it possible for this meeting?  Competing event for Policy means
> there
> >>> will be little reason to entice people to come .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ...Skeeve
> >>>
> >>> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> >>> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; www.v4now.com
> >>> <http://www.v4now.com/>
> >>>
> >>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
> >>>
> >>> facebook.com/v4now
> >>> <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> >>> <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
> >>>
> >>> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ;
> >>> blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]
> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      Skeeve,
> >>>
> >>>      Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in this
> meeting.
> >>>      I'm asking about future meetings.
> >>>
> >>>      Regards,
> >>>      Masato
> >>>
> >>>      2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]
> >>>      <mailto:[email protected]>>:
> >>>
> >>>          Masato-san,
> >>>
> >>>          Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or
> >>>          Lightening talks for this event?  I would love to go to both.
> >>>
> >>>          I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not
> >>>          APNIC events.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>          ...Skeeve
> >>>
> >>>          *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> >>>          *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> >>>          [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; www.v4now.com
> >>>          <http://www.v4now.com/>
> >>>
> >>>          Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383
> >>>          <tel:%2B61%20%280%29414%20753%20383> ; skype://skeeve
> >>>
> >>>          facebook.com/v4now
> >>>          <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; <
> http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> >>>          <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
> >>>
> >>>          twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ;
> >>>          blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>          IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> >>>
> >>>          On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi
> >>>          <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>              Dear All,
> >>>
> >>>              While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean
> >>>              during the ML discussion,
> >>>              it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is
> >>>              best for Policy SIG.
> >>>
> >>>              Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu.
> >>>              However, do you think it is a barrier for wider
> participation?
> >>>              (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?)
> >>>
> >>>              Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy
> SIG?
> >>>              (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve
> mentioned)
> >>>
> >>>              Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in
> >>>              Fukuoka.
> >>>
> >>>              Regards,
> >>>              Masato Yamanishi
> >>>              APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
> >>>
> >>>              *              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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *              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
> >>
> >
> > *              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
>
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to