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/[email protected]/
[ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources Moved to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources Moved to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources Moved to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Suchy
danny at danysek.cz
Wed Oct 16 11:34:12 CEST 2013
IP address space is a technical ressource in general. Difference between PI and PA is just administrative, assigned IP address will always work independently on it's status. For PA address space, financial-related informations ale published already (should be, by policy), there's no real reason to hide similar informations for PI address space. By publishing sponsoring LIR, only existence of relationship between LIR and End-User is visible. It's not about detailed contract content (financial aspects). Members of RIPE also should be able to verify, if ripe-452 policy is implemented properly by RIPE NCC. Publication of sponsoring LIR provides this option. There should not be some "dark" IP spaces, where we'll not able to found responsible LIR. Policies aren't developed on GM. There's no reason to postpone this until GM. This proposal brings more transparency and it was discussed properly within WG. With regards, Daniel On 10/16/2013 11:01 AM, Sergey Myasoedov wrote: > Randy, > you are right and I am not trying to decide whether we do have consensus as I am not a chair of WG. > > Kurtis, > Please consider my message as a comment to a proposal. I already posted my thoughts before, and I hope the reason of objection is clear. Let's postpone the implementation of proposal until next GM (or until the board decides not to put this question to GM agenda). > > > -- > Sergey > > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: > >> Sergey Myasoedov <sergey at devnull.ru>, >>>> as for me, there is no clear consensus. >> >> Kurtis: >>> you can appeal this decision if you believe we have acted in error. >>> However, I would like to point out that consensus does not mean >>> universal agreement, and I still believe there is a consensus for this >>> proposal in the WG. >> >> perhaps sergey would find draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt helpful >> >> consensus != unanimity >> >> randy >> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4240 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20131016/f8af1d83/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources Moved to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources Moved to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]