Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus

["Eric B. Decker" <cire@deckerstone.net>]

>>>>> "ww" == Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet <woeber@cc.univie.ac.at> writes:

    ww>   Bottom line[3]?
    ww>   	In 2 years time, if indeed someone has the motivation to do a
    ww> 	review - the RIRs have to find the resources for that exercise.

    ww> 	That was the reason why I argued against a fixed re-application
    ww> 	interval for the allocations, in favour of a recommendation to the
    ww> 	RIRs to do such a review after 2 years if
    ww> 	1) they do see a *technical need* for that, and
    ww> 	2) if they do have the resources for doing it.
    ww>   		[Those in the RIPE region should be able to understand the
    ww> 		background for that recommendation.]
    ww> 	I hope that the Bangkok minutes do document that recommendation.
    ww> 	If they don't, they should be amended.

Hi Wilford,

That is my understanding of what came out of Bangkok.  I haven't
checked the minutes to that level of detail but I do know that what
you wrote above is what I got from the presentation at Las Vegas.

-c
-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net