Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
Before formally submitting my statement of support, I'd like to ask for clarification on the proposed text for 6.3, specifically: " ...this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined. " Which party would "define" such "special cicumstances" and which party would review/grant/deny? Thanks, Wilfried
* Wilfried Woeber
Before formally submitting my statement of support, I'd like to ask for clarification on the proposed text for 6.3, specifically:
" ...this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined. "
Which party would "define" such "special cicumstances" and which party would review/grant/deny?
The NCC, I presume... I would like to make it very clear that this exact formulation was in the original policy document (prior to Run Out Fairly), so it isn't anything new. (This is also the case for all other text that this proposal adds.) See: Maybe Alex or someone else from the NCC could shed some light on how this part of the policy was interpreted prior to the implementation of Run Out Fairly? Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
* Tore Anderson
I would like to make it very clear that this exact formulation was in the original policy document (prior to Run Out Fairly), so it isn't anything new. (This is also the case for all other text that this proposal adds.)
See:
Whops. See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-498 -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
* Tore Anderson
* Wilfried Woeber
Before formally submitting my statement of support, I'd like to ask for clarification on the proposed text for 6.3, specifically:
" ...this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined. "
Which party would "define" such "special cicumstances" and which party would review/grant/deny?
The NCC, I presume...
I would like to make it very clear that this exact formulation was in the original policy document (prior to Run Out Fairly), so it isn't anything new. (This is also the case for all other text that this proposal adds.)
Oh my. There is a problem here. See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03/draft The formulation you're referring to, is present as «original text». It was also present in ripe-449. When preparing my proposal, I used the above page and did the exact opposite. However, I had overlooked that the ripe-449 had been obsoleted by some other policy change prior to the implementation of Run Out Fairly. Which means that my proposal, as currently stated, reverts (parts) of that other proposal also. That is not the intention of this policy at all. I will try to have Emilio spin new version that actually reverts the changes made by Run Out Fairly, and only those. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
* Tore Anderson
Oh my. There is a problem here.
Hmm. I think that if there is a problem, it's just with me sending out e-mails too quickly. :-) I think I ended up confusing my own proposal with the last /8 proposal... So unless I'm mistaken, the policy document immediately preceding the implementation of Run Out Fairly, was: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471 The first document that contained Run Out Fairly, and that obsoleted ripe-471, was: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-484 Having double-checked the differences between the two, I do believe that the changes my proposal would do, is what I've advertised - the exact differences between the policy after and before the implementation of Run Out Fairly. The sentence you pointed out, about the «special circumstances», was present in ripe-471, at least. My apologies for crying wolf here. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
participants (2)
-
Tore Anderson -
Wilfried Woeber