[address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

Dear colleges.

I fully support the proposal because it has no negative consequences. It is very small and puts the current policy in the right order.
If the new LIR can get the IPv4 network I don't see any reasons why new LIR can't get the IPv6 network.
We must support the development of IPv6 but not create problems with IPv6.

This proposal is like small fix on github. I don't see any reasons to not approve it.


BR,
Alexey Galaev
+7 985 3608004, http://vpsville.ru http://cloudville.ru

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthieu Herrb" <matthieu at herrb.eu>
To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 12:40:02 PM
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 05:05:18PM +0000, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> Thanks Gert!
> 
> Further, having no inputs removes all the fun of the PDP!
> 
> In case you missed previous emails, to make it easier for you to comment, I've prepared an on-line diff so you can easily track the proposed changes:
> 
> https://www.diffchecker.com/2mGPoRbo
> 
> Also, the complete text of the proposal is here:
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01
> 
> Now folks don't have any excuse to not comment ;-)


Hi,

As far as I'm concerned, this looks ok...


> 
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
>  
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
> Fecha: lunes, 19 de marzo de 2018, 16:48
> Para: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>
> CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
> 
>     Dear AP WG,
>     
>     On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:34:25PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>     > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion.
>     
>     This policy proposal was prompted by the discussion at the last RIPE
>     meeting, where the NCC brought up the issue that the IPv6 allocation policy 
>     talks about "organization" without ever defining what that is - "one LIR
>     account", "one legal organization" (which can hold multiple LIR accounts),
>     etc.
>     
>     Jordi volunteered to clean up the text, and here's the proposed changes
>     - but without some feedback from *you*, we can't clean this up.
>     
>     [..]
>     > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 23 March 2018.
>     
>     Thus: feedback please.
>     
>     Like
>     
>       - "the text matches the original intent as I have always understood the
>         policy, and we should go there"
>       - "this is not my understanding of the original policy, because ..."
>       - "never touch a working policy!"
>       - "I do not see this as a big problem, but the new text works for me"
>     
>     Gert Doering
>             -- APWG chair
>     -- 
>     have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>     
>     SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
>     Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
>     D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>     Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>     
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-- 
Matthieu Herrb