This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Wed Dec 3 17:03:40 CET 2008
On Dec 3, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Stream Service wrote: > Hello, > > Wouldn't it be an good option if the RIPE meetings becomes organized > by > another entity (for example a new organization (could be a > "vereniging" or > "stichting", I cannot remember the correct translations for both > words)) > that only works on creating the meetings with support from RIPE NCC > (where > needed). This would solve this issue and it would be easier I guess > to offer > options to talk if you want things to be changed within the RIPE NCC. Yeah and make sure the entity is registered outside of the NCC service region so any conflict of interest can be avoided :) No really, don't you think this goes a bit too far ? Like Gert already posted, Remco made a suggestion which seems to be far and straightforward and if we get stuck in the 'NCC can't sign with themselves' I'm perfectly happy to have a chat with our sponsoring dept and run the request via our LIR so there is no need for the NCC to sign a direct enduser agreement. MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]