[address-policy-wg] IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal

Perhaps someone can clear up my understanding on the ETNO
question.

Torunn Narvestad <tna at telenor.net>  wrote on 30/04/2006 19:44:35:
> I do not at all support this policy proposal.

> >And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address 
policy
> >WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the
> >reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this
> >proposal".

According to this page: http://www.etno.be/Default.aspx?tabid=1239
Telenor is a member of ETNO. Does this mean that ETNO has
falsely claimed unanimous support among its members?
Or has Telenor changed its mind?

Earlier Per Heldal asked:
>Does this mean that ETNO assume they have some form of veto in the RIPE
>community? I can't see any reason why ETNO's vote should count for more
>than any other _individual's_ opinion regardless of who they claim to
>represent.

Again, perhaps I misunderstand how RIPE works. Per refers to ETNO's vote
but I thought that ETNO had no vote at all in RIPE working groups.
My understanding was that individuals have a vote, not organizations.
Have I misunderstood something here?

--Michael Dillon