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 <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Sander Steffann <<a href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl">sander@steffann.nl</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Hi, <div class="im"> > 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. </div>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... <div class="im"> > 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. </div>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 </blockquote></div>