[address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated

>   From address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net Fri Oct 29 07:47:19 2004
>   From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>

Dear Jeff,

First of all it may be useful to clarify that we are talking about
AfriNIC (i.e. the RIR for Africa, with provisional recognition of
ICANN, as opposed to AFNIC, who are the TLD operator for .fr).


>   > >>>   Thanks for your explanation.  So I guess this means two different
>   > >>> policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such?
>   > >>
>   > >> No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed
>   > >> this and agreed on it.
>   > >>
>   > >>> Interesting
>   > >>> method of policy determination..
>   > >>
>   > >> Why? This is how all address-policy is determined.
>   > >
>   > >   And there is the curx of the problem...
>   >
>   > Ah...you mean an open and transparent policy process?
>   
>     No of course not...
>   
>   > Ok fare enough.
>   > Most the rest of us think that is a good thing. You're ofcourse free to
>   > disagree.
>   
>     No I am all for it. However if a policy for one is different than
>   for another is that wise?  Maybe so, maybe not so...  If Afnic is
>   happy with it, great!  >;)  But is it reasonable to call it a "Policy".
>   Or would it be more accurate to say a "Policy for Afnic" and
>   everyone else has a different policy?
>   
>   Just trying to understand what the criterion if any for
>   determining "Policies" are and should be...
>   
>     But I am happy to see that not one size fits all, if you will
>   pardon the pun...  >;)

Well, I would agree it is this latter case. Most of the policies are
regional policies, although there is a lot of effort invested in
elaborating global policies.

Best regards,
Janos Zsako