[address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)

Hi,

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:30:28PM +0300, Opteamax GmbH wrote:
> On 15.05.2014 13:27, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> > JFTR, *this* is about personal opinion from the community (and thanks
> > for the support), not about waving "I have 4 LIRs, and 4 votes!" voting
> > slips :-) - so since we're aiming for (rough) consensus, it's really
> > individual contributions that count.
> > 
> 
> Guess you missunderstood my mail. I am currently hard working getting
> those other LIRs partitipating and contributing more to the community,
> it is at least a first step, that I made them expressing their support
> "thru me" ... I hope I get them to sign up apwg-ml soon ... keep trying ;)

I think I understood you, and I appreciate the effort - thanks :-) - it's
just that every now and then, for the benefit of the *other* readers, I
feel I need to point out that this is really all about "individual
contributions" :-)

Gert
-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140515/1c5e9b5a/attachment.sig>