[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] restricting future policy proposals July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Mon Jun 20 11:50:59 CEST 2016
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote: > > > On 20 Jun 2016, at 09:04, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > > > But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes > > to the IPv4 policy > > +1 > I'm almost there. In the early discussion phase, I was tending towards being against the proposal being discussed, with a certain does of "meh, doesn't matter much". But then all the extremely bad opposing non-arguments kindof have convinced me that 2016-03 is needed, and should probably be implemented. After that, though, I think further changes are unnecessary. > > A possible compromise might be a requirement for future IPv4 policy > proposals to show that they do not disadvantage future participants or > increase the burn rate of the remaining IPv4 pool. Same thing really. > > How does one go about restricting future policy proposals? -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160620/84584483/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] restricting future policy proposals July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]