[ppml] [sig-policy] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
My point is that we first need a global strategy and later probably
global and/or coordinated policies for implementing that strategy.
And of course, I agree with you regarding commitments, and rest that you said.
At 09:45 a.m. 12/02/2008, Ray Plzak wrote:
>Merely pointing out that there are implications to the use of the
>term globally coordinated policy, a term that has been used many
>times over the past several months, perhaps a little to glibly.
>Even a global and coordinated strategy will require commitments,
>once made, must not be subject to disassembly by the subsequent
>actions of a single RIR. Once that happens the global and
>coordinated strategy is neither global or coordinated. Think locally
>while acting globally is more than just a catchy phrase.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 7:38 AM
> > To: Raul Echeberria
> > Cc: Ray Plzak; ppml at arin.net; sig-policy at apnic.net
> > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy
> > Proposal
> > > I am not necessarily claiming for a global or a coordinated policy
> > > (maybe yes), but for a global "and" coordinated strategy for dealing
> > > with a global problem.
> > too radical. it is our right to think locally while acting globally.
> > that's why there are five rirs, right?
> > randy
>* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
>sig-policy mailing list
>sig-policy at lists.apnic.net
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1273 - Release Date:
>12/02/2008 09:31 a.m.