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/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Mon Mar 1 15:07:41 CET 2010
On 01/03/2010 14:04, Arjan van der Oest wrote: > Andy wrote: >>> Competition is not a bad thing. >> Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for my >> integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the >> government makes me ask them for some integers. > Assuming that ITU would become a nationwide alternative RIR, you still > have the choice to approach NCC, wouldn't you? Why would this automatically be the case ? If governments were required to distribute addresses via the national regulator, then the freedom of choice would NOT be the case. > Not sure if Pepsi would be the right comparison for the ITU ;-) My point entirely. :-) Andy
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]