This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Draft agenda Address Policy Working Group RIPE 46
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Draft agenda Address Policy Working Group RIPE 46
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Draft agenda Address Policy Working Group RIPE 46
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hans Petter Holen
hpholen at tiscali.no
Thu Aug 14 20:38:36 CEST 2003
> what is your intention with regards to item J on the agenda? > > Leo's message gave inconclusive and incomplete information about the PI > task force work, merely citing a few bullet points with expressions > such as "there was some support for this". If that is the case: the outcome of the agenda item should be one of two: a) Keep existing policy b) Find a way to conclude with a proposal that can gain consensus in the future. > I have not seen any description of the background, relevant data > available (types of PI requests, for instance) and general problem > categorisation. Maybe we can ask leo to produce some data here ? > I haven't seen any description of the options discussed at the TF and > what were the arguments for some having "some support" and others "less > support". > > I reckon background for this would help immensely in carrying out a > sensible discussion. I guess that according to your mail regarding the > policy process at RIPE, the item is not meant to rubber stamp any > policy change at this time but if progress is to be expected on a > timely manner, a concrete problem statement with options analysis would > go a long way in avoiding discussion loops. Very good point indeed. > > Also, how does the outcome of item J affect item K? Interesting question. I have not read all of the draft to answer that question yet. Anyone else ? Regards, -hph > > regards, > Joao Damas > > > On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 12:26 AM, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > > RIPE 46 Address Policy WG Draft Agenda (v4) > > > > A. Administrative Matters > > - scribe > > - list of participants > > - agenda > > - RIPE 45 lir-wg minutes > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/r45-minutes.html > > - Actions > > > > B. Report from RIPE NCC Registration Services (Leo Vegoda) > > > > C. Internet Resource Status Report (Leo Vegoda) > > > > D. ICANN ASO Address Council Report > > > > E. Presentation of ASO Address Council Candidates > > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/aso2003/index.html > > Election in plenary > > > > F. Address Policy WG Charter > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/ > > msg00075.html > > > > G. RIPE-152 Charging by local registries > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/chargingbylirs.html > > > > H. Policy Development Process > > > > I. RIR-IANA relationship and procedures (Axel Pawlik) > > > > J. PI Address Policy & Initial IPv4 allocation size > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/ > > msg00030.html > > K Final revised IPv4 policy > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/ > > msg00010.html > > > > X. AOB > > > > Y. Summary of actions arising from this meeting > > > > Z. Open Microphone > > > > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Draft agenda Address Policy Working Group RIPE 46
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Draft agenda Address Policy Working Group RIPE 46
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]