Hi folks, One other way that this could be handled is to ask one of the other RIRs to assess the resource request. I'm trying to remember how we did this in the past with IPv4, am sure Daniel remembers, but I think we asked IANA to check the assignment. Any of the other RIRs will have Hostmasters or Resource Analysts that are highly familiar with the RIPE area policies. I would advise against making anything more cumbersome than it needs to be. Am sure the other RIRs have the same issue and a simple policy of review by another RIR would solve the issue for all. John On 08/12/2008 05:21, "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hello Shane,
I'd just like to mention as a tiny historical note, that the RIPE NCC was founded in part to organise RIPE meetings.
Look at 3.3 of the first RIPE NCC Activity Plan:
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-035.txt
Thank you for the reference.
The conflict of interest having the RIPE NCC evaluate it's own request for resources is real, but I think we must all admit totally symbolic. We're talking about very small blocks here, so seriously considering the idea of incorporating a new company to fill out some paperwork makes me wonder if I'm about to see a rabbit with a stopwatch running past declaring "I'm late, I'm late!". (*) :-)
All the paperwork needs to be correct though, so we need an official way to give the NCC resources. Remco van Mook suggested a solution (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00745.... tml) and offered to try to write a formal policy proposal (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00823.... tml).
I think this is the best way forward and we should give Remco some time to work on that policy proposal. Sander