[address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

Hi,

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 10:42:18AM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
> I can assure you it is not speculative(and I apologise if I give this
> feeling in any way), it was an pure "academic" discussion about the
> definition of the *need*.
> 
> And btw I do believe people are allowed to ask dum question here and the
> community should help people understand how things work, not everybody can
> afford to go to RIPE meeting and not everybody can go to training, mailing
> list remain the cheapest and most effective way still today to help people
> learning.

This mailing list has a very specific focus: forming of new policies,
and discussion and answering questions about *existing* policies.

Historic excursions are *not* on-topic, unless it's relevant for an
ongoing policy discussion (which this is not, we'll never return to
that state of IPv4 plentiness - which I already told you).

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151204/4296fbc3/attachment.sig>