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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01
- 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 ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Fri Dec 5 16:31:46 CET 2008
Hello Clive, >> Note that I'm not a lawyer - but as far as I understand, this is how the >> articles of the NCC are set up. The majority of the LIRs (+proxy votes) >> that attend the AGM vote for the board members and decide on the charging >> scheme (and possible changes to the articles). > > But what is the quorum for the meeting? Is it really as small as under 1%? > If the meeting isn't quorate, its decisions are invalid. If you want to discuss RIPE NCC member related issues, I think you should start a discussion on members-discuss at ripe.net. Discussing the RIPE NCC AGM on this list is not really appropriate. We should focus on address policy development here. I understand that this touches both RIPE policy and RIPE NCC membership/fee issues. Let's discuss each issue on the appropriate list. Thanks, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair
- 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 ]