[address-policy-wg] Is policy-making "large organisation friendly"?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Is policy-making "large organisation friendly"?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeffrey A. Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jul 28 02:03:08 CEST 2009
Jim and all, Anyone with half a brain and only a bit of experiance know that policy making almost always favors large orgs. significantly. Jim Reid wrote: > On 25 Jul 2009, at 17:44, Greg wrote: > > > You can only see how fast "large organization friendly" proposals go > > through and are accepted - this is just my personal view :) See the > > multiple /24 allocations for cTLDs that just got accepted. > > It's not clear what point, if any, you're making here. > > The recent change to provide space to TLDs for anycasting was > discussed on this list. Everyone had a chance to contribute to that > policy development. Many did. Including some like me who represent no > large organisation or even an LIR. The consensus was that these > allocations would be a Good Thing for the Internet, not just the TLD > operators who would get the space. Everybody and everything using the > Internet benefits if the DNS infrastructure for things like TLDs is > made more robust by anycasting, there's not just a small number of DNS > hosting companies offering commercial anycast services, etc, etc. > > I fail to understand why you'd characterise this policy as being > "large organisation friendly". It's clearly for the benefit of > everyone using the Internet. Oh and most TLD registries are not large > organisations. The biggest of them have turnover and staffing > equivalent to a modest ISP. My guess is the TLD registries that are > NCC members will probably be in the small membership category because, > comparitively speaking, they don't need or use a lot of numbering > resources. > > Now it may be that large organisations are better placed than small > ones to participate in policy discussions or attend RIPE meetings. > That's just a a fact of life. However it doesn't mean policy-making is > dominated by those large organisations. The barrier for participation > in policy discussions could hardly be any lower: a mail/web client and > some understanding of English. Your complaint, if it is indeed a > complaint, seems to be a bit like moaning about the government when > you've not even bothered to vote. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Is policy-making "large organisation friendly"?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]