[address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

Hi,

Gert Doering schrieb:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> I have asked Filiz to extend the discussion period for this proposal, 
> because there have been *no* comments in the last round - but the proposal
> itself was changed, and as such, I can't just declare "consensus" or
> "no consensus" here.

that's the whole problem with this "democracy" thing :-)
Existing Allocation holders might not care anymore, others might not 
read the relevant mailinglists/webpages <...>
(and some get bored of the lenghtly PDP ...)

> Please give us your input on whether you think the proposal *as written
> right now* is a good thing to have.

*** VOTE ***
If it comes to a vote: This is a *YES* for the vote-counter, as written 
right now.
*** VOTE ***

I supported the key point of the proposal (getting rid of some no longer 
needed obstacles for LIRs who want to get an IPv6 Allocation) from the 
start, so the changes are fine with me.

I don't think there are any relevant downsides like (relevant) routing 
table growth -> i don't see _any_ downsides from the main changes.

What i won't do now is commenting on minor wording issues; i want this 
proposal to be passed, NOW, not to continue some more years with some 
more versions of the draft. I think this can be dealt with in a 
follow-up proposal if really needed in this case. The main points are fine.

(BTW: This is not a personal issue, i have all my IPv6 Allocations 
already :-) I just want to get this done for the sake of IPv6 
distribution since we're discussing about that for ages now!)

-- 
========================================================================
= Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE          slz at baycix.de         =
= Network Operations                                                   =
= BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on demand *  =
========================================================================