On 15 May 2008 at 14:25, Tony Hain wrote: > < ... cut ...> this was the wording that all regions > are looking at. At > the same time, it was not necessary that this be a global proposal, as any > that agree could participate without requiring all to do so.
Then one way to proceed on this is for this to be withdrawn as a global policy so that we can close the issue and move forward. Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 15 May 2008 at 14:25, Tony Hain wrote: > All of the RIR's are in denial, refusing to recognize their hypocrisy when > telling customers that IP addresses are not property, while at the same time > insisting that the last N /8's become the property of an RIR to the > exclusion of the rest of the world. Then arguing with each other about the > 'appropriate size' for N while they are at it. > > The existing practice will come to an end the day the first RIR has to tell > a customer to go away because they have run out of space. The world will not > tolerate a resource being freely available in one place while in high demand > but unavailable elsewhere. There will be people circumventing the rules, and > the more restrictive the RIRs try to be, the more bizarre the impact will be > to the routing and registration systems. The only hope the smaller RIRs have > of dealing with the mess is to let the larger ones front the requests and > deal with the documentation. Denying that there will be a problem only > ensures that there will be no documentation of the fact that the address > space went where the demand was. > > It should be noted that while ARIN and RIPE turned this down as worded, they > were both at least willing to understand the concept and talk about a way to > address it. I never expected this specific wording to be in any formal > proposals, it was there as an example to base a discussion on. Since there > was no discussion, this was the wording that all regions are looking at. At > the same time, it was not necessary that this be a global proposal, as any > that agree could participate without requiring all to do so. > > Tony > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Vincent Ngundi > > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:10 AM > > To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Policy Proposal Summary - Cooperative > > Distribution of the End of the IANA IPv4 Free Pool > > > > Hi Cisco Phil, > > > > Thanks for this insight. > > > > > BTW, this was thrown out of the APNIC region when proposed there, > > > and given that all RIR regions would have to support it, it isn't > > > clear to me why it is even being proposed here. > > > > (a) Being a global policy, it was proposed at the same time in all > > RIR's. > > > > (b) For a policy to be rejected by members of the AfriNIC region, it > > must go through the approved policy development policy. Let's see > > what the community has to say. > > > > Regards, > > > > -Vincent > > > > -- > > KeNIC - The Kenya Network Information Center > > http://www.kenic.or.ke > > > > "dot KE for Every Name in Kenya!" > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
