[6bone] proposal for transfer of 6bone address management responsibilities to RIRs

[Philip Smith]

At 21:03 20/08/2002 +0200, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 18:49, Bob Fink wrote:
> >
> > c)    In order to receive 6bone address services from an RIR as described
> > here, each 6bone member must "join" that RIR, that is, enter into the
> > appropriate membership or services agreement with the RIR.
>
>I'm not agree with that.
>
>appropriate membership = LIR ?
>If yes, it's very bad; a lot of pTLA aren't LIR and a LIR can request a
>sTLA, why a LIR will request a 6bone address space ?

This is one discussion point. Bob says "appropriate membership" - it would 
be useful if you'd give opinions as to what that membership might be. Would 
certainly help the registries and Bob.

>6bone must be open, free and independent.
>A pTLA request must be free and without membership.

Independent of what? Why would having someone apart from Bob run the 
address registry suddenly make the 6bone closed, non-free, and 
non-independent? Even the IPv4 Internet is open, non-free and independent, 
so please explain the problem you see.

Bob has run the registry for free for the last many years. He could have 
charged money for it, simply to cover the costs he has undoubtedly accrued. 
It's not unreasonable, is it?

>6bone address services must be free.

This isn't an argument. Why?

>Since 1996 it's free and it's workfine !

What, the 6bone, or the 6bone registry? There is a difference.

I'm only trying to encourage people to express reasons with justifications 
- assertions that "life must go on without any changes" aren't too useful 
given that Bob is proposing a change.

philip
--