Jim, On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, David Kessens wrote:
In lieu of any other policy changes, are you, as a RIPE member and participant in the LIR, EIX, and IPv6 WGs, in favor of the interim policy proposal for IPv6 address assignment policy for internet exchange points?
- quite some people reacted and responded with a 'yes'
Correct me if I am wrong:
* there were 3 responses * RIPE has more than 1000 members * 1 of the 3 respondents does not represent a RIPE member
- few comments were send earlier to the list that a policy might not be needed at all
The purpose of this discussion is to reach 'rough consensus' on this new policy in the RIPE community - not necessarily just the RIPE NCC members. There is no need for everybody to react on the proposal. The goal is to give everybody a chance to participate in this discussion in the public and the assumption is that if people are not participating that they are not unhappy about the direction of the discussion as it is developing. For this reason, we posted an interim summary to the list in order to make sure that everybody is on the same page on the direction that the discussion is taking right now as perceived by the chairpeople. The summary is a very good chance for people who don't agree with the current direction of the discussion to voice their concerns and so far we have seen that indeed some objections have been raised. What's your opinion on the proposed policy ?!? Do you have strong objections why this policy should not go through, but you have suggestions with improvements that could make the policy reasonable in your eyes, or can you live with it as it is right now - but you might still have suggestions for improvement that we can use for the next version of the policy. Thanks, David K. ---