Who can see your viewing activity?
Thanks all of you to attend this meeting.
Good morning all!
Good morning Jordi.
Nguyễn Hồng Nhân
Good morning all!
Good morning Nguyen
Agree that a single word should be used to avoid confusion. Question what is the terms used in other RIRs is it end Site or end users. If one uniform term is used, perhaps same term can be used to ensure uniformity
Is not that easy, end-site is more IPv6 oriented, but it may happen also in IPv4. Both terms are needed, but end-user must be defined
In other RIRs we keep both
Thanks Jordi for clarifying
but in some RIRs, I had proposals, which reached consensus, to further clarify end-site and “location” with is one more problem
But should there not be definitions to help new people in policy discourses? Not all have historical knowledge?
Exactly, a new definition for end-user, so just everybody is in-sync
I would like to suggest have a policy hackathon in the training week in APNIC 52 with fellows and participants to help them get familiar with the policy and PDP.
Will the new structure (slide 11) be seen as exhaustive? With respect to Numbers?
I believe in one proposal per point too. Not one proposal trying to cover all issues.
Very SMALL suggestion for Sunny : Please number your slides in Bold-visible manner
@David, Each proposal needs to reach consensus, there is no sufficient time in a PDP meeting to handle that. Most of the small changes, are “easy”, and is difficult that they will not reach consensus, in the sense that they are non-contentious, so that’s why it makes sense to have just 2-3 proposals. One for the non-contentious and others for contentious ones
if we discuss every week one single topic, then we will se if “any” is contentious
that’s also why a small “involved” WG helps to make the work to go thru
May I mention: The consolidation in 2015, and now, is *extremely* helpful.
Thank you, Secretariat.
@Jordi, I'd support pooling "non-functional" (or "editorial only" changes) into a single proposal, but I do believe "functional" changes deserve a proposal for each "function".
the problem is that pure “editorial” are only 2 changes … so we end up with 20 proposals
have you looked at the PDF that I send to the list a couple of days ago?
Thanks for the session
No I haven't seen it yet.
Thanks to the chair, co-chair and everyone. I have to leave for my work now. I would like to agree with Jordi to have a WG or have a policy hackathon with fellows in the training week. Thank you.
Thanks for participating YingChu!
I point out these points are not generally impeding APNIC business, so if it takes 20 proposals and several meetings to work through them, I'm not sure that is a big problem. It also allows issues to be prioritised by importance.
Bye for now
Thanks everyone for joining this consultation. Hope you have a great weekend ahead
Thank all Bye