Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)

[Sascha Lenz slz@localhost]

Hay,

Andy Davidson schrieb:
> On 13 Dec 2006, at 16:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>
> > Several people raised concerns that new LIRs may not have sufficient 
> > experience to make good decisions with a /21 AW.
> To appease those worriers, the policy could say that the AW growth from 
> 0 to /21 is only permitted if the LIR has at least one admin-c who has 
> been to RIPE LIR training ?
hm, i don't really see why making the policy more complex is helping.
My point from my former post(s) keep standing... just pass the proposal 
so we can focus on the other more important ones :-)
As long as we don't start with per-LIR-contact AWs instead of per-LIR 
AWs, i rather prefer it simple than complicated. Because it doesn't make 
that much sense at all to have an AW per LIR if there are many different 
LIR contacts processing the requests anyways.  Some LIRs might do 
internal trainings or send their staff to LIR trainings, but not all.
==> I still support the request, actually rather the original draft than 
the updated one, but i'm fine with a 6month slow-start mechanism. Just 
don't think it makes much sense but might prevent at least some mistakes 
by new LIRs, yes. Mistakes by new LIR staff in any other LIR with a high 
AW are still not accounted for though. But do we want RIPE to look at a 
LIRs work that much? I guess not.
--
========================================================================
= Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE          slz@localhost         =
= Network Operations                                                   =
= BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on demand *  =
========================================================================