[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi

On 19 October 2016 at 11:48, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:39:10AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
> > I believe it is an permenent solution to an temporary problem.
> >
> > Think 5 years from now, after last /8 ran out, will we still care about
> it
> > anymore?
> >
> > Don't fix something that will no longer exsit in a short time period.
>
> So I take this as "non-support" = "opposition"?
>
> I think it is fairly clear here, but it would be good if people can very
> explicitly state their position, as the to-be-expected large amount of
> e-mail makes summarization very tedious for the chairs otherwise.
>
> Community is consensus based, not vote based.

What I have said is one of the concern that have to be addressd with an
reasonable counter argument.

Chair's job is not collecting vote but make sure all concerns have been
addressed reasonablely.

But again, I think this is personal so I will not continue this discussion
future.

Let's go back to the policy.


> thanks,
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161019/ff308825/attachment.html>