Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
-
To: Sascha Lenz <>
-
From: Gert Doering <>
-
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:42:46 +0100
-
Cc: Gert Doering <>, ,
-
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
-
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=BIo47l0vZ+yu/OItWLYfOdKy06IQP/Iy4FeikgTRh81TTwnJSjNd7wNvDI4VcwdT ;
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 12:09:59PM +0100, Sascha Lenz wrote:
> > - does every LIR get one vote (I hear Daniel Roesen yelling)?
> >
> > - does every person on the Internet get one vote?
> >
> > - How do you prevent abuse due to "ok, all employees of $big_carrier vote X"
> > (by coprorate order)?
>
> actually, it's a RIR Policy. So it would be quite quite logical to
> follow the RIR policy process and only let RIR-members ("LIR" or
> whatever it's called outside RIPE) vote.
>
> Don't really know if Daniel would yell on that.
Sure, because it's "the ISP monopoly deciding things that hurt all
the poor end users".
Also, in the RIPE land, it has *never* been the way that "only LIRs
decide" - to the contrary, all RIPE processes are open to anyone to
come to meetings (or subscribe to mailing lists) and enter discussions.
> But actually that's what i was thinking about (we're exclusively on RIPE
> WG Mailinglists here anyways).
> Don't know why i added the "in public" part in first place. No real
> reason. It would be stupid to think about a "at large" vote on that
> issue, ICANN failed trying to establish such things :-)
Doing it in a non-open way would directly play into ITUs hands.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
|