[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

[Daniel Roesen <]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:34:50PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Also the current IPv6 policy that only ISPs can get independently routeable
> address space is a fine line into anti-competitive behaviour which may be
> illegal according to EU anti-trust law.

Not only that, the billing scheme too. Every year it becomes more
expensive to receive resources. See the time factor in the score algo.
Given that this scheme is not a community-based decision, but a
membership decision, this may (or may not, IANAL) subject to anti-trust
laws as well.

I think that RIPE needs a means to poll for votes in the RIPE region in
an open manner, and base policy decisions on the outcome of those, not
on the opinions of a few vocal folks who have the time and money to
invest in mailing lists and RIPE meetings to bring forward their agenda,
with someone then concluding "rough consensus" (or not).

At least on a membership level that should be easy to achieve. Mail
policy proposals to LIR contacts and ask to vote. Without having to read
hundreds of mailing list postings and voicing opinions there. Of course
the current policy discussion does affect members (LIRs) the least -
they do already have their addresses (most of them), so asking only the
membership to vote would be again the wrong thing to do.


Regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@localhost -- dr@localhost -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0