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

Hi Gert,

On Monday 21 June 2004 17:20, Gert Doering wrote:
> I tend to disagree with that statement.  Over 360 allocations have been
> made, so I'd say (again) that the policy seems to be working fairly well
> for a number of people.

Well these 360 people have not (yet?) piped up and said "We're happy, leave it 
as it is".

> *One* person is taking major offence at not being allowed to play with
> the big boys. 

Condescension will get us nowhere. Ok, we're a small ISP in a small market. 
Since we aim at the business/leased line market only, we may not have 200 
customers, let alone 200 IPv6 allocations, within 2 years (I hope to be 
wrong, of course). 
Give me *one* good reason why we shouldn't be allowed to offer IPv6 
connectivity? Give me a reason why we should lose *one*, otherwise happy, 
customer because of an arbitrary "line in the sand"?

> This is to be expected if the community decides to draw 
> a line at "who gets an allocation, who doesn't".  Democratic procedures
> aren't necessarily *nice* to everybody.

When was this policy democratically decided? IIRC it was handed down from 
IANA/ICANN (I may be wrong on this)

Besides, there is no benefit to this rule as far as I can see. IPv6 space is 
not a scarce resource. IPv4 is, yet is is easy enough to get.

> I count that as "one member is very unhappy, and a few others have
> sore spots", which is something different from "clearly, few members
> are happy"...

If this is to be discussed, everyone who is happy with the existing rule is, 
of course, free to say so. Silence does not, necessarily, imply assent.


Best regards,
Sascha Luck
Eirconnect