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] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Lenz
slz at baycix.de
Mon Jul 14 08:36:31 CEST 2008
Hi altogether, Gert Doering schrieb: > Hi APWG folks, > > this proposal keep being difficult for our processes. > > We got a rebound from the WG chair collective, because they felt that > there was no explicit consensus for version *2* of the proposal, which had > some signficant changes (inclusion of ERX in the text). > > Now this is v3, trying to work out the last wrinkles, and get it through > the process properly, and we got *NO* comments on it. > > "No comments" does not mean "consensus". It means "nobody is interested, > leave us alone with this". > > I think that this is a very important milestone, and it needs good backing > by the community (or if you don't want it, it should be explicitely torn > down). > > The main difference v2 -> v3 is that ERX space has been completely taken > out [because RIPE has no legal basis to enforce anything - we'll come back > to this with a new proposal], and that there is a *new* document that > describes what to do with existing end-user assignments - which has exactly > the same intent as v2, but we can't put requirements for existing assignments > into a "new assignments" documents, so this needed cleaning up. > > So - please read the documents, as referenced in Ana's mail below, and then > explicitely voice agreement or disagreement with 2007-01 v3. > > thanks, [...] the PDP we have starts to annoy me over this proposal. Very sad. My clear p.o.v., as private netizen, as consultant and as LIR still is: We need a contractual relationship in those cases we're talking about here. So i still support this proposal - "2007-01 v3", even though i'm a little unhappy about all the redesigns and the political debate around it. I still have one or two issues with the details, too (like we still don't have actual NUMBERS as in $$$ etc.), but i'm not that self-centric to stop the whole process about that. If there's a problem, we can start again from there, AFTER THIS IS FINALLY IMPLEMENTED. Policies can be CHANGED again guys... politicians do it all the time... PLEASE go on with this, now. It's a start at least. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]