-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I should know better than replying to this... On 2004-10-29, at 09.59, Jeff Williams wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 2004-10-29, at 06.50, Jeff Williams wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such?
No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed this and agreed on it.
Interesting method of policy determination..
Why? This is how all address-policy is determined.
And there is the curx of the problem...
Ah...you mean an open and transparent policy process? Ok fare enough. Most the rest of us think that is a good thing. You're ofcourse free to disagree. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYHhXKarNKXTPFCVEQKM4wCgwXPOXk125iEJ5C4zPoWT4lAsPGkAoPDd ovgvWo1X09V8ro0kJXIpOdVX =WQiB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----