[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

> Actually I'm even starting to doubt about the effectiveness of 
> having different RIRs. It will not be simple to have a single 
> entity, with different local offices, with localized training plans,
> etc., but single global policy ? 

Sounds like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It was
definitely simpler but it simply did not work in the long
run. The real world is too fluid; simple static theoretical
approaches usually do not work.

In the stormy seas of policy and politics, we need a
calming influence to keep things under control and the
current RIR system does this. A single global policy might
lead us to something like this:

http://www.offbeattours.co.nz/photo/18.htm

But I think this:

http://www.axonhost.com/active/crazywind/sailing/Log7-13.htm

is good enough.

> One suggestion I made several times is that instead of having 3 
> regional meetings per year, we should have less regional meetings 
> and 1 Global RIRs (all the members) meeting. This meeting can move 
> each year to a different region and I'm sure will be very good to 
> actually help to build a global policy.

The RIR regions are already quite large geographically.
That's why a lot of people don't participate in the
regional meetings unless it comes very close to them.
That's also why RIPE NCC has had special meetings in 
Russia and Dubai and Kenya. If we started to have
global meetings even fewer people would attend them.
And most of the people who would attend a global
meeting already go to ARIN, RIPE, APNIC meetings.

We need to avoid applying engineering solutions and
techniques to problems of policy and politics.

--Michael Dillon