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] Is policy-making "large organisation friendly"?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Is policy-making "large organisation friendly"?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeffrey A. Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jul 28 02:03:08 CEST 2009
Jim and all, Anyone with half a brain and only a bit of experiance know that policy making almost always favors large orgs. significantly. Jim Reid wrote: > On 25 Jul 2009, at 17:44, Greg wrote: > > > You can only see how fast "large organization friendly" proposals go > > through and are accepted - this is just my personal view :) See the > > multiple /24 allocations for cTLDs that just got accepted. > > It's not clear what point, if any, you're making here. > > The recent change to provide space to TLDs for anycasting was > discussed on this list. Everyone had a chance to contribute to that > policy development. Many did. Including some like me who represent no > large organisation or even an LIR. The consensus was that these > allocations would be a Good Thing for the Internet, not just the TLD > operators who would get the space. Everybody and everything using the > Internet benefits if the DNS infrastructure for things like TLDs is > made more robust by anycasting, there's not just a small number of DNS > hosting companies offering commercial anycast services, etc, etc. > > I fail to understand why you'd characterise this policy as being > "large organisation friendly". It's clearly for the benefit of > everyone using the Internet. Oh and most TLD registries are not large > organisations. The biggest of them have turnover and staffing > equivalent to a modest ISP. My guess is the TLD registries that are > NCC members will probably be in the small membership category because, > comparitively speaking, they don't need or use a lot of numbering > resources. > > Now it may be that large organisations are better placed than small > ones to participate in policy discussions or attend RIPE meetings. > That's just a a fact of life. However it doesn't mean policy-making is > dominated by those large organisations. The barrier for participation > in policy discussions could hardly be any lower: a mail/web client and > some understanding of English. Your complaint, if it is indeed a > complaint, seems to be a bit like moaning about the government when > you've not even bothered to vote. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Is policy-making "large organisation friendly"?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]