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] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nigel Titley
nigel at titley.com
Fri Jul 8 15:11:58 CEST 2011
On 07/07/2011 23:35, David Monosov wrote: > > Furthermore, I find the section 'E. RIPE NCC Executive Board' to be somewhat in > bad taste; not only is it not the community's province to convince the RIPE NCC > board of the merit of its ideas, the section also lacks any concrete facts, > operational burden estimates or specific concerns and instead appears to do > little more than attempt to tilt the opinion of the undecided against this > proposal. The RIPE NCC board has a duty to remain in touch with the proposals currently being considered by the RIPE community, mainly to ensure that such proposals, if they are accepted by the community, do not raise unacceptable risks to the operations, financial and otherwise, of the RIPE NCC. In that sense the community *does* have to convince the RIPE NCC board of the merits of its ideas as the board has an ultimate responsibility (under law) to ensure that the RIPE NCC operates in a fiscally sensible manner. It also has a responsibility to its members which, although they have an extensive overlap with the RIPE community, are not the the same thing. In the RIPE region, the NCC Board operates with an extremely light touch. In other regions policy has to be signed off by the board as a final stage of acceptance and they can veto what they consider to be unacceptable policy. This does not happen in this region. Instead the board remains au fait with policy development and feeds their comments into the RIPE NCC evaluation of the policy. That is what you are seeing here, no more and no less. It is precisely because of this light touch that we have limited our comments to the fact that we feel some unease about the policy but feel that it is not our place to comment further but that we have confidence that the community will do the right thing. Further comments would be done as individuals, as usual. The community in general understands this, I believe. Best regards Nigel Titley Chairman of the RIPE NCC Board
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]