On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
On 22/09/2013 18:52, Gert Doering wrote:
(Though I'm starting to get tempted to request full disclosure of anyone who is directly affiliated with a regional registry, as when judging consensus, I'm going to look very closely at contributions from RIR employees, board members, etc. from different regions that operate in a very different situation as far as remaining IPv4 address space is concerned.)
People who have relationships with other RIRs are part of the RIPE Community, so I don't think there are any formal grounds to dismiss their opinions when evaluating consensus.
On the other hand, if someone who has a relationship with a RIR actively takes part in policy discussion in another RIR, it's easy to see how this could be seen as interference - particularly so if the person involved doesn't hold resources from or have any particular relationship to the other RIR.
Difficult dilemma. I'd feel more comfortable if we could depend on peoples' tact and common sense when contributing outside their areas, rather than creating rules and guidelines to deal with the situation. The fewer rules, the better. If there are guidelines, they should be RIR organisational guidelines which apply to the RIR representatives rather than to the policy groups where they're contributing to.
+1 to Nick's post, but I'd like to add that we should be happy that other RIR take interest in discussions going on in our region, and if they chose to post that is also mostly a good thing. They might give us a broader view of thing, add some elements to the discussion we don't see in our RIPE-land mindset? Then there is that line between contributing and trying to influence because it in the end will suite their own goal. So far have I read the posts from "outside" RIPE land more as contributing than trying to influence. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no