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 ]
Smales, Robert
Robert.Smales at cw.com
Mon Mar 1 17:50:58 CET 2010
> -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Arjan van der Oest > Sent: 01 March 2010 16:21 > > Again, my only point is: allocating space to ITU may settle > whatever worries they have. I'm just trying to point out that > competition (and change) are not a bad thing and I'm > reluctant to start seeking conspiracies about world > domination via ipv6. Let's see what it is ITU is *really* > trying to get done, let's chat about it and then let's see > what is wise. I see the RIRs as regulatory organisations. I tell my users that they have to justify their requests for IP space with properly completed RIPE-488s (OK, I will accept RIPE-381 or RIPE-315), even though most requests are within my assignment window, because 'it is the rules'. If you have competition between regulators, people will choose whichever one is most likely to give them what they want (kind of like the way anyone bringing a defamation action will choose to bring it in England if they can, rather than the US because English courts are much less sympathetic to free-speech than US courts). Thus, if APNIC is stricter than the ITU, people will apply for address space from the ITU rather than APNIC, if APNIC is less strict than the ITU, no one will apply for space from the ITU RIR. Competition between regulatory bodies is a bad thing. Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ
- 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 ]