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] Contributions from other RIR representatives (was: Re: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup))
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Contributions from other RIR representatives
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Contributions from other RIR representatives
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jørgensen
rogerj at gmail.com
Mon Sep 23 08:56:07 CEST 2013
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote: > On 22/09/2013 18:52, Gert Doering wrote: >> (Though I'm starting to get tempted to request full disclosure of anyone >> who is directly affiliated with a regional registry, as when judging >> consensus, I'm going to look very closely at contributions from RIR >> employees, board members, etc. from different regions that operate in >> a very different situation as far as remaining IPv4 address space is >> concerned.) > > People who have relationships with other RIRs are part of the RIPE > Community, so I don't think there are any formal grounds to dismiss their > opinions when evaluating consensus. > > On the other hand, if someone who has a relationship with a RIR actively > takes part in policy discussion in another RIR, it's easy to see how this > could be seen as interference - particularly so if the person involved > doesn't hold resources from or have any particular relationship to the > other RIR. > > Difficult dilemma. I'd feel more comfortable if we could depend on > peoples' tact and common sense when contributing outside their areas, > rather than creating rules and guidelines to deal with the situation. The > fewer rules, the better. If there are guidelines, they should be RIR > organisational guidelines which apply to the RIR representatives rather > than to the policy groups where they're contributing to. +1 to Nick's post, but I'd like to add that we should be happy that other RIR take interest in discussions going on in our region, and if they chose to post that is also mostly a good thing. They might give us a broader view of thing, add some elements to the discussion we don't see in our RIPE-land mindset? Then there is that line between contributing and trying to influence because it in the end will suite their own goal. So far have I read the posts from "outside" RIPE land more as contributing than trying to influence. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Contributions from other RIR representatives
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Contributions from other RIR representatives
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]