RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork

[Shane Kerr shane@localhost]

On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 15:58 +0000, michael.dillon@localhost wrote: 
> > Which leaves the problem of "an entity assigning to itself, 
> > and doing a contract with itself" - which can be seen as a 
> > problem with neutrality.
> 
> We aren't lawyers. Why are you asking us to solve legal problems.
> Any lawyer will tell you that this is simple. Incorporate an
> entity separate from the NCC that will organize meetings. It can
> have the same board of directors as the NCC, or some other arrangement
> if you wish. This organization can then sign contracts with the
> RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC no longer has to worry about RIPE meetings
> because RIPE now deals with a separate organization to hold the
> meetings.

I'd just like to mention as a tiny historical note, that the RIPE NCC
was founded in part to organise RIPE meetings.

Look at 3.3 of the first RIPE NCC Activity Plan:

ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-035.txt

The conflict of interest having the RIPE NCC evaluate it's own request
for resources is real, but I think we must all admit totally symbolic.
We're talking about very small blocks here, so seriously considering the
idea of incorporating a new company to fill out some paperwork makes me
wonder if I'm about to see a rabbit with a stopwatch running past
declaring "I'm late, I'm late!". (*)

--
Shane

(*) Perhaps the rabbit is talking about the state of his IPv6
deployments though...