Hi William, > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of William Waites > Sent: 11 May 2015 09:20
> You say that this is about governmental networks but that is not > actually mentioned in the proposal itself. If you are correct then the > proposal should be changed to explicitly mention that. If you are not > correct then this just leaves more discretion to RIPE, which is fine > -- I've always found the NCC to be rational and reasonable. To clarify; the policy proposal is *not* aimed solely at governmental and/or multi-national networks. Whilst these may be the background and particular perspectives that drove the authors to submit the proposal it is very much intended to help satisfy the requirements of any organisation whose justified needs are not satisfied by what the authors consider to be bespoke and overly-specific assessment criteria in the current policy. This point of view is not intended to be an outright criticism of the policy as such, more a highlighting of the fact that much knowledge and experience has been gained since the criteria was first written (ripe-246 in 2002?) and that it is perhaps having unintended consequences given that valid requirements now exist that were not originally anticipated and/or catered for. On this point, the illustrative examples included in the proposal are non-exhaustive and definitely not intended to necessarily apply to all cases. Regards, Mathew
