Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated
From address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net Fri Oct 29 07:47:19 2004 From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Dear Jeff, First of all it may be useful to clarify that we are talking about AfriNIC (i.e. the RIR for Africa, with provisional recognition of ICANN, as opposed to AFNIC, who are the TLD operator for .fr).
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?
No of course not...
Ok fare enough. Most the rest of us think that is a good thing. You're ofcourse free to disagree.
No I am all for it. However if a policy for one is different than for another is that wise? Maybe so, maybe not so... If Afnic is happy with it, great! >;) But is it reasonable to call it a "Policy". Or would it be more accurate to say a "Policy for Afnic" and everyone else has a different policy?
Just trying to understand what the criterion if any for determining "Policies" are and should be...
But I am happy to see that not one size fits all, if you will pardon the pun... >;)
Well, I would agree it is this latter case. Most of the policies are regional policies, although there is a lot of effort invested in elaborating global policies. Best regards, Janos Zsako
Janos and all, Excuse me, I meant AfriNIC not AFNIC... Janos Zsako wrote:
From address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net Fri Oct 29 07:47:19 2004 From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Dear Jeff,
First of all it may be useful to clarify that we are talking about AfriNIC (i.e. the RIR for Africa, with provisional recognition of ICANN, as opposed to AFNIC, who are the TLD operator for .fr).
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?
No of course not...
Ok fare enough. Most the rest of us think that is a good thing. You're ofcourse free to disagree.
No I am all for it. However if a policy for one is different than for another is that wise? Maybe so, maybe not so... If Afnic is happy with it, great! >;) But is it reasonable to call it a "Policy". Or would it be more accurate to say a "Policy for Afnic" and everyone else has a different policy?
Just trying to understand what the criterion if any for determining "Policies" are and should be...
But I am happy to see that not one size fits all, if you will pardon the pun... >;)
Well, I would agree it is this latter case. Most of the policies are regional policies, although there is a lot of effort invested in elaborating global policies.
Best regards, Janos Zsako
-- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
participants (2)
-
Janos Zsako -
Jeff Williams