[cooperation-wg] Internet governance

In message 
<5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D2B at EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>, 
at 07:52:34 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> 
writes
>> Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right
>> to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some
>> considerable time).
>
>I have to disagree. I don't think there was any "considerable time."
>
>ripe-196 was published in mid-1999 and documented the "Provisional IPv6
>Assignment and Allocation Policy." It was called the "bootstrap" policy at
>the time and was intended as a 'shakedown' to allow the first 100
>allocations across all three RIR regions (this was before LACNIC and then
>AFRINIC achieved recognition, in-line with ICP-2). The idea was to find
>out what was good and what needed to change for a more permanent policy.
>It was an experiment.
>
>At the end of June 2002, ripe-246 documented the policy that had been
>developed based on the experience gained through ripe-196. As you note, it
>did not cater to IXPs but that problem was solved about six weeks later,
>with the publication ripe-256 in early August, which documented "IPv6
>Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points."

I remember this being an issue at RIPE meetings in 2000.

But aside from the fog over the timescale, can you give us a quick 
run-down of the relevance to this issue of "running code"? After all, 
the purpose of this list (and the WG) is to foster co-operation and 
capacity building with other stakeholder groups not familiar with IETF 
(and other technical) jargon.

-- 
Roland Perry