RE: [sig-policy]RE: [sig-ipv6]Let's restart discussion about RIPE-261 [l
> Good thinking in the first place. However, you have not been
> allocating
> on a per-country basis, have you? That's more or less what we are
> talking about:
Just clarifying the LACNIC activity. In regards to AfriNIC, there are 3
RIRs present, was just clarifying ARIN.
>
> The way I see it, any changes you (the RIRs) want to be made
> to the way
> addresses are delegated to you by ICANN/IANA are going to require some
> political lobbying (regardless of what you decide to do is
> the CAP, a /8
> or so per RIR as per Gert, or my system).
>
> This kind of process does not happen often, and I sense you
> are about to
> go for it. The point I am trying to make is: while you're at it,
> consider using the opportunity to include some reasonable aggregation.
That is why the document was presented for discussion.
ARIN staff members do not normally get involved in policy discussions as
our role is to faciltate the process not make the policy hence we do not
comment on the merits of any policy proposal or weigh in on any side of
the discussion. Facilitating includes such things operating and
maintaining mail lists, conducting public policy meeting and providing
clarifications of past activity, hence my comments on LACNIC and
AfriNIC.
BTW this discussion would be better on the global v6 list.
Ray