[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 ]
Shane Kerr
shane at time-travellers.org
Mon Dec 8 11:26:20 CET 2008
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 15:58 +0000, michael.dillon at bt.com 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...
- 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 ]