[address-policy-wg] Board position on 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Board position on 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Fri Jul 1 11:54:26 CEST 2011
Hello Sander, Many thanks for your clarifications. However, I still think that the concept of implementing IPv6 PI address space never reached a full concensensus. Not even a rough one. We might run out of the routing tables before that IPv4 -> IPv6 transition goes above 80% -- this is a real danger! Let's accelarate the transition and come back to this issue whan it is almost complete! Thanks, Géza On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>wrote: > Hi, > > > We had this issue a few years ago over the proposal that required all PI > holders to have a contract with the NCC. Which was before the current PDP > had been finalised IIRC. The policy had reached consensus in the WG and it > was then a simple matter of implementation. Until the Board and management > realised what that entailed: hiring a small army of people to handle all the > paperwork for thousands of PI holders. The Board decided this was a Bad Idea > and asked the WG to reconsider. > > Just for the record: we had the PDP already at that point in time and the > objection was raised during last call. At no point in time has the board > asked the working group to reconsider a policy that had already reached full > consensus. The members of the board are also members of this community of > course, so they can object to a policy in the same way everybody can... > > > There is this ugly little gap in our policy making. The community which > makes policy (RIPE) is not necessarily the same as the people who pay for > that policy to be implemented (the NCC membership). The Board has to > straddle that gap somehow. OTOH, it can't "make policy" or get involved in > operational matters. On the other the Board has the usual responsibilities > to look after the interests of the organisation (the NCC) and its members. > > At some point we refined the PDP to include an impact analysis by the RIPE > NCC. Communication between the board and the WG and WG chairs has improved a > lot as well. So I feel confident that any potential problems in this area > will be openly discussed. > > Thanks, > Sander > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110701/e9c988b1/attachment.html>
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Board position on 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]