[address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Lenz
slz at baycix.de
Mon Jul 14 08:36:31 CEST 2008
Hi altogether, Gert Doering schrieb: > Hi APWG folks, > > this proposal keep being difficult for our processes. > > We got a rebound from the WG chair collective, because they felt that > there was no explicit consensus for version *2* of the proposal, which had > some signficant changes (inclusion of ERX in the text). > > Now this is v3, trying to work out the last wrinkles, and get it through > the process properly, and we got *NO* comments on it. > > "No comments" does not mean "consensus". It means "nobody is interested, > leave us alone with this". > > I think that this is a very important milestone, and it needs good backing > by the community (or if you don't want it, it should be explicitely torn > down). > > The main difference v2 -> v3 is that ERX space has been completely taken > out [because RIPE has no legal basis to enforce anything - we'll come back > to this with a new proposal], and that there is a *new* document that > describes what to do with existing end-user assignments - which has exactly > the same intent as v2, but we can't put requirements for existing assignments > into a "new assignments" documents, so this needed cleaning up. > > So - please read the documents, as referenced in Ana's mail below, and then > explicitely voice agreement or disagreement with 2007-01 v3. > > thanks, [...] the PDP we have starts to annoy me over this proposal. Very sad. My clear p.o.v., as private netizen, as consultant and as LIR still is: We need a contractual relationship in those cases we're talking about here. So i still support this proposal - "2007-01 v3", even though i'm a little unhappy about all the redesigns and the political debate around it. I still have one or two issues with the details, too (like we still don't have actual NUMBERS as in $$$ etc.), but i'm not that self-centric to stop the whole process about that. If there's a problem, we can start again from there, AFTER THIS IS FINALLY IMPLEMENTED. Policies can be CHANGED again guys... politicians do it all the time... PLEASE go on with this, now. It's a start at least. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]