*cry*
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
this is one of those situations ... trying to be a good netizen, even checking and commenting on proposals which i only have a personal opinion of, no real professional one since i don't deal with IXPs so much lately in this case (unfortunately) - but keeping track of which ones i've already said something to, and in which review phase seems to be impossible for an old brain. Some much more intelligent person than me really should come up with a better PDP or some supporting tools to the PDP process beyond the mailinglist archive. But i sensed some opposition to some "informal voting tool" on drafts over the past years :-( Having said that: I still support this proposal ( i think i supported it in earlier phases ) Reasoning: Even though i also think (like some others) that there shouldn't be "special people/companies/etc.", i deem IXPs important enough for the development of the internet in a whole to justify an exception. Also, one less /16 in the pool isn't going to end the world (OTOH it probably would end the IPv4 world one week earlier, but that would be a good thing actually) I think, the community and the NCC can make sure that this "special policy" cannot be abused by fake IXPs or so. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect