[address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?

Hello!

I was more interested about the TIMEFRAME one could expect. :-)

The current status "Awaiting Decision from Working Group Chair" is two 
weeks old now (August 23rd). Please don't get me wrong: I am completely 
unfamiliar with RIPE decision findigs. I just like to know, how soon one 
can expect a decision - to finaly decide about that matter or to 
continue discussion again.

regards,
Thomas


Marco Hogewoning schrieb am 26.08.2011 10:18:
> On Aug 26, 2011, at 9:20 AM, DI. Thomas Schallar wrote:
>
>   
>> Hello!
>>
>> I'm back with the same question I made a month ago: what ist the current status on the multihomed v6 PI topic? The "current" phase on the proposal ended three days ago (August 23rd) and the status is "Awaiting Decision from Working Group Chair".
>>
>>   http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02
>>
>> What now?
>>
>> regards,
>> Thomas
>>     
>
> The current state is what it says, it is awaiting a decision from the WG chair(s) together with the proposer on how to move forward. This decision is based on the feedback received on the mailing list during the last round. Usually this can go two ways:
>
> - There is rough consensus on the proposal and the suggested text, which will mean the proposal can move to last call
> - People have suggested changes which need to be included or there seem to be a need for further discussion, in which case the current period will be extended or revised documents will be published together with a new call for feedback
>
> More information on the  Policy Development Process, including all the phases can be found at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/policy-development-process-glossary and is described in document ripe-500 which can be found in the document store at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-500
>
> Regards,
>
> Marco
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110907/92cb1790/attachment.html>