Hi,

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:

I oppose both policies.

For 2015-04 it's obvious, a policy that is supposed to arrange my hair

nicer would make me bold. You either do a cosmetic reorganisation or

important changes which should never be added just like that, as some

changes are minor and shouldn't be discussed (but in a different policy)

As for 2016-03 I think we should set our goals right. Isn't everybody

saying that IPv4 is dead for over 4 years already ? Isn't everybody saying

that the only way forward is to IPv6 and exhausting RIPE's available pool

sooner would help people move to IPv6 ?

Please do NOT mix comments to different policies into an e-mail that
has a Subject: that says "2016-03".

This makes it MUCH harder for the chairs to go back to the mail archives
later on and see who said what regarding a specific proposal - and then,
if I cannot remember "oh, there was a comment about 2015-04 in a 2016-03
thread", you're going to complain that I have ignored your comment.  Right?

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 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279