[address-policy-wg] Board position on 2011-02

Hello Sander,

Many thanks for your clarifications.

However, I still think that the concept of implementing IPv6 PI address
space never reached a full concensensus. Not even a rough one.

We might run out of the routing tables before that IPv4 -> IPv6 transition
goes above 80% -- this is a real danger!

Let's accelarate the transition and come back to this issue whan it is
almost complete!

Thanks,

Géza


On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > We had this issue a few years ago over the proposal that required all PI
> holders to have a contract with the NCC. Which was before the current PDP
> had been finalised IIRC. The policy had reached consensus in the WG and it
> was then a simple matter of implementation. Until the Board and management
> realised what that entailed: hiring a small army of people to handle all the
> paperwork for thousands of PI holders. The Board decided this was a Bad Idea
> and asked the WG to reconsider.
>
> Just for the record: we had the PDP already at that point in time and the
> objection was raised during last call. At no point in time has the board
> asked the working group to reconsider a policy that had already reached full
> consensus. The members of the board are also members of this community of
> course, so they can object to a policy in the same way everybody can...
>
> > There is this ugly little gap in our policy making. The community which
> makes policy (RIPE) is not necessarily the same as the people who pay for
> that policy to be implemented (the NCC membership). The Board has to
> straddle that gap somehow. OTOH, it can't "make policy" or get involved in
> operational matters. On the other the Board has the usual responsibilities
> to look after the interests of the organisation (the NCC) and its members.
>
> At some point we refined the PDP to include an impact analysis by the RIPE
> NCC. Communication between the board and the WG and WG chairs has improved a
> lot as well. So I feel confident that any potential problems in this area
> will be openly discussed.
>
> Thanks,
> Sander
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110701/e9c988b1/attachment.html>