Christina, First of all, I owe you an apology for the last paragraph of my email to this list on May 26th of this year. This email was written in some haste and I didn't read EC097 thoroughly before posting it. Secondly, there is no need to be sorry to contribute to this discussion. This is an open forum and your contributions are welcome. Indeed, as it's an open forum on internet policy, it is quite normal to see a certain quantity of discussion which could be loosely described as peanut-gallery contribution. Probably it is more useful to ignore this rather get annoyed by it. I'm also glad to see that ETNO will be contributing their thoughts to v3 of this policy proposal. In doing so, could I suggest that you consider the following issues: 1. There is already an IPv4 address trading market. 2007-08 does not propose to create this; merely to regulate it and in doing so, to attempt to bring the bring the behind-the-scenes horse-trading which you describe in 3.2 of EC097 out into the open a little more. I cannot see how it is useful to state that there shouldn't be a market in future when there is serious demand for IPv4 address space, when such a market already exists. 2. I don't believe for a moment in the future world of RIR ipv4 address exhaustion, that if a shortage of IPv4 addresses were to get in the way of new customer acquisition for any ETNO member, they would stay from an IPv4 address market. Regardless of individual ETNO members' contributions to EC097 right now, if any one of them were to seriously in future suggest that their employers refuse to acquire new IPv4 addresses through whatever legitimate means possible (whether through some variant of 2007-08, a grey market, ISP skeletons, or whatever), then the decision power to acquire new IP address space in order to facilitate the continued growth of the company will be taken away from any address market nay-sayers and moved elsewhere in the business to whatever level is required to override the "no markets" policy - whether that level be a regular Business Development unit within the company or right up to board level. This is an important point, so let's restate it: if ETNO thinks that the current "no markets" principle is going to override its members' future business continuity, then ETNO is deluding itself. Nick Hilliard

Christina and all, I see no reason why ETNO cannot discuss whatever they want regarding existing IP address policy and their experiences with same. That said, it is not in good keeping to have two separate discussions, one open and one closed, ETNO's, regarding proposed address policy if openness and transparency, bottom up process is to be adhered too and fully recognized. What ETNO seems to be doing is a power play that ignores existing practice of process and seeking to plow under smaller entities in determining address policy. That's inconsistent with good governance practice, almost always leads to discontent, and usually yields poor policy... I for one hope ETNO reconsiders this practice and participate openly, honestly, transparently, and as such constructively. Kelaidi Christina wrote:

I am annoyed with the e-mails continually being circulated to the RIPE address policy mailing list regarding ETNO participation in the policy process.

It is regretful that ETNO processes (driven by the members of ETNO), that relate to the thinking and discussing of issues before they are submitted to a mailing list that makes decisions about policy proposals which impact the future of the internet in the RIPE region, might stir such discussions. It also regretful that the substance behind ETNO's points that have been thought deeply by representatives of ETNO and who believe in the bottom up processes of the RIR internet community is not the focus of the discussion.

ETNO members might be companies with large LIRs, but on the other hand ETNO members have felt the impact of processes and policies being imposed top down by regulators and therefore cherish the bottom up processes of the RIPE community. ETNO follows through its members, who are represented by individual experts, RIPE discussions and have actively participated in address policy discussions in the past. In particular ETNO participated in the discussions regarding this proposal because its members wanted to ensure that the issue of the impact of this proposed policy on the internet community as a whole was understood from all aspects; an impact that cannot be clearly understood by those who just type before thinking.

I am sorry that I have had to write this e-mail and I hope that I will not have to do so again in the future.

Finally, ETNO has considered this new version of this proposal and will post its opinion to the RIPE list separately; having ensured that it has followed the bottom-up processes defined by its members.

Christina Kelaidi Chairperson, ETNO Numbering, Addressing and Naming WG

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827