On Mar 19, 2007, at 3:26 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The definition of an organization is not something to be done by
AfriNIC, is
there, is a legal definition and I guess is valid in every country
on the
world (I may be wrong): Whatever is not an individual.
I agree with a previous comment that a individual can create an
organization, but typically this is done only if there is a real need
(creating a business, a non-profit organization, whatever).
Or event to get IPv6 PI space.
Individuals
don't tend to do so, especially because it cost money and a lot of
paper
work (every year, or even every month/3 months) to justify the
accounting,
taxes, etc. to the government.
With all due respect, I think that's your opinion.
If an individual decides to create an organization, that's fine, they
deserve to be allocated a PI if it is justified by the rest of the
criteria.
So in such a case, will we have prevented an *individual* per se from
getting v6 PI space?
I also think that the current text doesn't define if the end-site is a
single "physical location" or allows several. I think it should be the
later, and end-user-organization make it clear.
When I did the first PI proposal, it took to me long time and many
discussions with lot of folks to understand why they were asking me
to use
end-user-organization (in my drafts I was using end-user/end-site
terminology). Now I'm convinced that this is the right wording, and
if we
can't have an agreement on that, then is clear to me that we will
have two
competing policy proposals. I don't think it helps, but seems there
is no
other way.
I still don't see the harm that "end-user-organization" creates to the
intend of your policy. According to the policy proposal itself
(section
"current situation"), reading in between lines, it was meant in
order to
facilitate the consensus (or I'm wrong ?),
You are right and that's exactly what we are doing...this is how
consensus is reached. We need to be all-inclusive if we are to
achieve genuine consensus.
-v
but if we can't do so, it seems
to me that it was much easier allowing my previous proposal to get
evolved
to match the inputs received in the last policy meeting, instead of
creating
a new one to create confusion and compete.
De: Alain Patrick AINA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organización: technologies réseaux et Solutions (www.trstech.net)
Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, AfriNIC Resource Policy
Discussion List
<[email protected]>
Fecha: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:00:20 +0000
Para: <[email protected]>
Asunto: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy
Proposal:
IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
I think so. In principle our policies are not made for individuals
accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this
case I
think a good justification is to be an organization).
Otherwise one of the missions of the RIRs, the adequate
management of
address space (not a wasteful one), is not fulfilled.
The question is: Do we think, the proposed criteria are good
for what we
intend to do with this policy ?
If the answer is "no" and the solution is "be an organization",
then let add
* "Must be an organization"
So, if a "individual" meet the initial assignments criteria, he
will need to
become an organization to qualify.
Please, think in the implications in terms of routing table if
just a 10%
of the individuals in the world are able to get this resource. Is
not only
about the addressing space, which probably could perfectly cope
with that
for 100% of the world population if using /48, but what about the
routing
slots ? Are you willing to pay then for a 10 times more expensive
router in
your network (you will not have other chance, you are being
forced to that
if the routing table grows at that point).
We need a balance here.
I suspect that, we will need a definition of "organization"
including size.
And are we not meeting folks against this policy here ?
--alain
Let us keep think simple and move forward.
--alain
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org
This electronic message contains information which may be
privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for
the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this information, including
attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
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
