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

Gert,

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:57:19AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> Nobody (from the RIPE region) ever spoke in favour of it, as far as I
> can remember...

Actually ... It was a compromise between the different regions. As
such, it worked just fine since we managed to get a policy in place
that worked better than the one before. Times change though and it
seems that nobody cares at all anymore about the fact that we are
dealing here with global resource that has global impact and that
should have a global policy. There is no point to keep adhering to
global policy that is not in use anymore in any of the other regions.
It is very sad, but it's the truth.

> > So I don't think there was such a strong need for removeing the rule, 
> > just if we clarified it sufficiently so that people would not (again!) 
> > interpret it too strongly.
> 
> We would definitely need to clarify it "very much so".  

This is not about clarifying. The policy is very clear: 'you need a
plan to have 200 customers'. I cannot help it that people have trouble
reading that. Getting rid of the requirement for 'a plan' or for '200
customers' is a 'policy change' not a 'clarification'. And policy
changes should be discussed out in the open and not be sneaked in as
if they are just a minor 'clarification'.

David Kessens
---