<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Hi all,<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>This is a grammar details that doesn’t affect the policy proposal content. I’m fine either way, but of course, I’m not native English, and the way it is being used in the document right now, was the suggested NCC format.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>So, I will say I’m happy if they choose one way or another, for consistence with the rest of the policies in the region.<o:p></o:p><div> Regards,<o:p></o:p>Jordi<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand@gmail.com> Fecha: viernes, 4 de mayo de 2018, 10:01 Para: Ian Dickinson <Ian.Dickinson@tfmnetworks.com> CC: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div><a name="_MailOriginalBody">If LIR is pronounced “Elle-Eye-Are” (which is how I pronounce it) then “an LIR” is correct. It would only be “a LIR” if you pronounce it “Lear”. <o:p></o:p></a></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div><a href="http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/04/using-a-or-an-with-acronyms-and-abbreviations.html">http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/04/using-a-or-an-with-acronyms-and-abbreviations.html</a><o:p></o:p><div id=AppleMailSignature><div>Scott<o:p></o:p></div></div><div> On May 4, 2018, at 1:42 AM, Ian Dickinson <<a href="mailto:Ian.Dickinson@tfmnetworks.com">Ian.Dickinson@tfmnetworks.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div>There are a number of occurrences of "an LIR" (and also "An LIR") throughout the document that should be changed to "a LIR". Presumably only s/Organisation/LIR/ was done. Other than this grammar nit, I am happy the text matches the goal and I support it. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg <<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net">address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net</a>> On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 03 May 2018 16:08 To: <a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims to clarify the wording used in ripe-699 regarding terms such as "organisation" and "LIR". The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - Clarifies when the subsequent allocation policy applies - Fixing some typos The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01</a> And the draft documents at: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01/draft" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01/draft</a> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussing the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and send any comments to <<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>> before 1 June 2018. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum</a> <o:p></o:p>Disclaimer<o:p></o:p>This email is private and may be confidential and is intended for the recipient only. If misdirected please notify us by telephone and return and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this email or any information within it. We use reasonable endeavours to virus scan all emails leaving our organisation but no warranty is given that this email and any attachments are virus free. You should undertake your own virus checking. The right to monitor email communication through our networks is reserved by us.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote></div></div> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. </body></html>