Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated

[Jeff Williams <]

Jon and all,

  Thank you Jon for your explanation.  I now have the understanding
I thought I had but was taken back by ARIN having one allocation
policy for minimal allocations and AFriNIC having another in that
AFriNIC is in part somehow connected to both RIPE and ARIN,
so than AFriNIC elected to go with a lower allocation.  Still
one has to wonder as to why AFriNIC went that way as it in some
ways doesn't make good sense...  Perhaps that was due to
political pressure?

Jon Lawrence wrote:

> On Friday 29 October 2004 12:17, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > Gert and all,
> >
> > Gert Doering wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:50:36PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > > >   Thanks for your explanation.  So I guess this means two different
> > > > policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such?
> > >
> > > Every region has different policies.
> >
> >   I understand that every region has different policies.  However
> > isn't AFriNIC serviced via ARIN?  And as such if all other
> > RIR's have distinct policies, as well as distinct policy determination
> > practices and/or policies for making policy determinations than
> > it would seem logical that in AFriNIC's case it should have the
> > same minimal allocation policy as ARIN does.  If not, than I
> > and still trying to understand why not, and than secondly what
> > are the criterion for determining policy(s) are used that justifies
> > a different minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC vs ARIN
> > in this instance other than AFriNIC just asking for a different
> > minimal allocation in an open and transparent manner.  Is
> > therefore by just asking, a minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC
> > also applicable to other RIR's?  If not, why not?  If so, than
> > is there any structure by which any allocation or other policies
> > determined by.
> >
> IIRC, there are currently parts (of the to be AfriNIC) which are served by
> ARIN whilst other parts are served by RIPE.
> In the end, it's up to the AfriNIC members to decide their own policy but in
> the meantime the interim policy (if you like) has to be ratified by both RIPE
> and ARIN (correct me if I'm wrong). ARIN currently allow /22 min alloc' so it
> makes sense for AfriNIC to go for the lowest common denominator (ie a /22).
> This was discussed on this mailing list and at Ripe meetings and agreed to by
> the members present.
>
> As to the structure for changing policies (in the RIPE region) I believe that
> you simply post a possible 'new policy' to this group - perhaps contacting
> the WG-chairs before hand - and if there is enough support for the policy
> then it you present it at the next RIPE meeting. If there is support for the
> policy at the meeting then it will enter somekind of discussion phase prior
> to being accepted as policy - I'm sure Gert et all will put me right on
> this :)
>
> Jon

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"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.
E-Mail jwkckid1@localhost
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827