[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3

> No, it's not a fair or open way to do that. [What about those 
> who can't physically get to the meeting? Web/phone 
> participation doesn't count. Who gets to vote?]

If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough
to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. 
Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because
they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no
difference.

> It's also 
> incompatible with the current Policy Development Process 
> which is based on list-driven, bottom-up consensus.

The extraordinary general meeting would not be about changing
policy, it would be about an activity plan to divide up the 
remaining inventory of IPv4 addresses between the applicants
who have requested a piece of the final /8.

> > Why do we need to decide this today, when there is little 
> motivation 
> > to reach a decision and not enough information available to make a 
> > decision. For instance we do not know what will be the market 
> > penetration of IPv6 at the point of IANA runout.
> 
> IMO this is another reason for not even trying to make a 
> decision. The current policy isn't broken and doesn't need 
> fixing.

This is also a reasonable approach, i.e. I have suggested option
c) but your suggestion of option d) is also worthy of consideration.

> I'm glad we agree about something Michael. :-)

Perhaps we agree that simply re-evaluating options a) and b) is
not the best way to proceed?

--Michael Dillon