[address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal: #Zeta Adding Regional Boundaries to policy documents

Dear all,
After some thinking I have deceided to withdraw this proposal for two 
reasons.
i) I am not able to find a wording that properly reflects the inention
ii) There would be a conflict of interest if I were to declare consensus 
on a proposal authored by myself.


others are of course welcome to reword and submit another proposal.

best regards,

Hans Petter Holen

> Dear Address Policy WG,
> This policy proposal is nothing more than an editorial change - but we 
> still feel it is fair to run it trough the PDP.
> As I do not expect much discussion I propose the discussion phase to 
> end by May 1st.
>
> While I am voicing this proposal the suggestion actualy comes from our 
> excellent RIPE NCC staff. Thanks leo for pointing this out.
>
> Best Regards
> Hans Petter Holen
> Address Policy
>
> 1.      Number Zeta
>
> 2.      Policy Proposal Name: Adding Regional Boundaries to policy 
> documents
>
> 3.      Author
>
>        a.      name: Hans Petter Holen
>
>        b.      e-mail: hpholen at tiscali.no
>
>        c.      telephone: +47 45066054
>
>        d.      organisation: Visma IT AS
>
> 4.      Proposal Version:
>
>
>
> 5.      Submission Date: 16/4-2005
>
>
>
> 6.      Suggested WG for discussion and publication
>
>        Address policy type
>
>
>
> 7.      Proposal type:
>
>        a.      modify
>
>
>
> 8.      Policy term:
>
>        a.      permanent
>
>
>
> 9.      Summary of proposal
>
>
>
>        Our AS assignment policy has the following statement in it:
>
>
>
>        "The RIPE NCC assigns AS Numbers for Autonomous Systems
>        located in the RIPE NCC service region"
>
>
>
>        Neither the IPv4 nor the IPv6 policy documents have such a
>        clear statement in them. It might be a good idea to add a
>        similar statement to those documents when they are updated.
>
>
>
> 10.     Policy text
>
>        a.      Current (if modify):
>
>        b.      New:
>
>
>
> 11.     Rationale:
>
>      a.  Arguments supporting the proposal
>
>        Clearification of the scope of the documents
>
>
>            b.  Arguments opposing the proposal
>
> n/a
>