Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
Hi, I invite everyone that supports this proposal to publicly say so by posting a message to the list, so that the proposal will hopefully be fast-tracked by the WG chairs. * Emilio Madaio
The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.
I have a small nit to pick with the impact analysis, which says: The allocation and assignment periods will no longer be three months. Said periods will become: [...] - For assignments: 24 months. That is not what the proposal says. It makes no mention of 24 months anywhere. What it does say, is: Assignments’ immediate utilisation should be at least 25% of the assigned space. After one year, this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined. Therefore, if the end user's usage is increasing exponentially over time, his maximum assignment period will be less than 24 months. On the other hand, if the end user's usage is increasing at a slower and slower pace over time, his maximum assignment period will be longer than 24 months. In any case, the text in question is the exact same as it used to be before Run Out Fairly was implemented. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
I support both the proposal and the suggestion on fast-tracking. +1 /Ragnar On 30.10.12 16:31, "Tore Anderson" <tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com> wrote:
Hi,
I invite everyone that supports this proposal to publicly say so by posting a message to the list, so that the proposal will hopefully be fast-tracked by the WG chairs.
* Emilio Madaio
The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.
I have a small nit to pick with the impact analysis, which says:
The allocation and assignment periods will no longer be three months. Said periods will become: [...] - For assignments: 24 months.
That is not what the proposal says. It makes no mention of 24 months anywhere. What it does say, is:
Assignments¹ immediate utilisation should be at least 25% of the assigned space. After one year, this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined.
Therefore, if the end user's usage is increasing exponentially over time, his maximum assignment period will be less than 24 months.
On the other hand, if the end user's usage is increasing at a slower and slower pace over time, his maximum assignment period will be longer than 24 months.
In any case, the text in question is the exact same as it used to be before Run Out Fairly was implemented.
Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Anfinsen, Ragnar < Ragnar.Anfinsen@altibox.no> wrote:
I support both the proposal and the suggestion on fast-tracking.
I also support both the proposal and the suggestion on fast-tracking. -- Jan
Hi,
I invite everyone that supports this proposal to publicly say so by posting a message to the list, so that the proposal will hopefully be fast-tracked by the WG chairs.
I'm a little curious about this mention of 'fast-tracking.' The word 'fast' doesn't, perhaps unsurprisingly, appear anywhere in the PDP. <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-500> The only opportunity to reduce the time taken for the process is by shrinking the review period, which is listed to last "no more than four weeks." Given the deadline for this period has already been sent for November 27th, I'm not sure what scope there is for 'fast tracking.' :) Cheers, Rob
Hi, On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:55:38PM +0000, Rob Evans wrote:
The only opportunity to reduce the time taken for the process is by shrinking the review period, which is listed to last "no more than four weeks." Given the deadline for this period has already been sent for November 27th, I'm not sure what scope there is for 'fast tracking.' :)
Well, there is the option of "not going to have another review period" if consensus is clear enough :-) - and that fast-tracks things quite a bit. 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi,
I invite everyone that supports this proposal to publicly say so by posting a message to the list, so that the proposal will hopefully be fast-tracked by the WG chairs.
I'm a little curious about this mention of 'fast-tracking.' The word 'fast' doesn't, perhaps unsurprisingly, appear anywhere in the PDP.
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-500>
The only opportunity to reduce the time taken for the process is by shrinking the review period, which is listed to last "no more than four weeks." Given the deadline for this period has already been sent for November 27th, I'm not sure what scope there is for 'fast tracking.' :)
There is no such thing, but as a WG co-chair I do understand the sense/feeling of urgency that it gives :-) We cannot change the schedule of the current PDP phase at this time though. Thank you, Sander
* Rob Evans
I'm a little curious about this mention of 'fast-tracking.' The word 'fast' doesn't, perhaps unsurprisingly, appear anywhere in the PDP.
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-500>
The only opportunity to reduce the time taken for the process is by shrinking the review period, which is listed to last "no more than four weeks." Given the deadline for this period has already been sent for November 27th, I'm not sure what scope there is for 'fast tracking.' :)
I was referring to Gert's reply to Nina's comment in the APWG session at RIPE65, see https://ripe65.ripe.net/archives/video/110/ and skip to 17:50. In http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/policy-development-process-glossary it says that «the default duration for the review period is four weeks, although the WG Chair can reduce this», so I was assuming that was what he meant by "fast-track". Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
participants (6)
-
Anfinsen, Ragnar -
Gert Doering -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Rob Evans -
Sander Steffann -
Tore Anderson