[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs

>> and i do not buy the assumption that the rirs need no oversight,
>> just as i do not buy that the iana does.  and i do not buy that
>> these policy fora mailing lists provide that oversight any more
>> than i buy that the equivalent ones in icann provide the same
>> for the iana.
> So what are your proposals to improve the system, then?

what's broken?  the rirs watch the lirs.  iana watches the rirs.
icann watches the iana.

> I agree with you that ICANN doesn't work.

you are agreeing with a statement i did not make.  i may have
'issues' with the icann, but in general they have not managed
to break the internet as much as a lot of other players.

> As for the RIPE NCC, at least in the last few years, things have
> been reasonably well

and in the next few years?  things go in cycles.  that is why we
should be relatively conservative and have oversight and
cooperation.

> IPv6 things have been too conservative

oh, you have run out of space?

> and too slow

i thought you said that ripe was working well?

> but overall "a situation people can live with".  Which is pretty
> much the most that can be expected from such a sort of "sort-of
> grass-roots buerocracy".

i just don't buy the 'grass roots' stuff for the rirs any more
than i buy it for icann or the government in washington dc.  wake
up and smell the coffee; this is not the internet of our youth.

randy