Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

[Nigel Titley nigel@localhost]

Gert Doering wrote:
> Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has no 
> significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's "individuals taking 
> part in the discussion" not "I represent a bigger organization that
> you"), fundamentally opposing anything, without being willing to start
> a constructive dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments.
>
> Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew their
> statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements are 
> already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust their
> position.  Which is not the way to constructively go about changing
> policies.
>   
V3 of the policy was explicitly issued to address the main ETNO concern, 
that is the "need" requirement. If you carefully look at V3 you will see 
that the RIPE NCC now has to apply exactly the same checking and 
approval process that it does for a "normal" allocation.
Nigel