Hiya folks, Am I the only one who is beginning to feel that the word "open", as used here is not what is meant by open in the common sense ? Is there a good reason why the draft cannot immediately be presented to the RIR members/funders who will chose to actually implement this policy ? While appreciating the support work of the RIPE NCC here, I must ask: is it the LIR Working group(s) who make policy or the RIR NCCs ? I would hate it for the same or similar policy mistakes to be made again. Last time (RIPE 195,196) I remember thinking, "this policy seems all wrong, but it's better to have this than nothing at all". I suspect lack of openness and consultation with ISPs was the cause then. Let's get it done correctly this time - IPv6 users are waiting. The sooner RIR members and the LIR group(s) get to see this and contribute the better in my view. Concensus on the mailing lists is very close so this should not be too hard a task. Cheers Dave On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: -> ->Dear LIRs, -> ->I am happy to inform you that the first draft of the Global IPv6 ->policies document is ready for a collective review by the RIRs. This ->draft incorporates the results of discussions that took place at open ->policy meetings and intensive meetings among the RIRs and the IETF. -> ->This review will also allow time for APNIC to present some of the new ->developments already discussed in the ARIN and RIPE community to its ->community at the upcoming APNIC open policy meeting on 28 - 31 August. -> ->As agreed at RIPE 39, following the RIR revision, the document will be ->sent to an editorial team for review. -> ->We hope to have a final draft ready to publish to the LIR-WG ->approximately 3 weeks prior to the RIPE 40 Meeting. However, this ->relies on the reactions from both the APNIC community and the ->editorial team. -> ->Thank you for all the useful contributions made so far. -> ->Regards, -> ->Mirjam Kuehne ->RIPE NCC -> -> ->