[address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andreas Schachtner
andreas at schachtner.eu
Wed Dec 3 17:18:16 CET 2008
... > Yeah and make sure the entity is registered outside of the NCC service > region so any conflict of interest can be avoided :) > > No really, don't you think this goes a bit too far ? Like Gert already > posted, Remco made a suggestion which seems to be far and > straightforward and if we get stuck in the 'NCC can't sign with > themselves' I'm perfectly happy to have a chat with our sponsoring > dept and run the request via our LIR so there is no need for the NCC > to sign a direct enduser agreement. I support such a pragmatic approach instead of forming new entities. You never get rid of those, you know :-) Andreas -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 233 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20081203/e5ffef74/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]