ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

  • To: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [ga] Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <40D796EB.E88BA5D@ix.netcom.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Check it out here at the Net prelim comments. This is exactly the same warped logic being played out there.  "If you do not meet my! criterion you simply are not qualified" "oh and by the way only members of my club can meet my standards."
http://forum.icann.org/lists/dotnet-comments/ 

Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sascha and all,

Sascha Luck wrote:

> On Monday 21 June 2004 10:41, Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> > 1) giving easy access to an IPv6 prefix allocation for real ISPs, and
> > 2) not giving a prefix to enterprises or "toy" (or other small) ISPs.
>
> I take offence at being called a "toy ISP".
>
> Apart from the moral issue here, this stance is probably illegal under EU law
> as it is blatantly anti-competitive.

I and our members agree with you here Sascha. Where on earth Pekka
and others ever got the idea that small ISP's are "Toy ISP's" is simply being
anti competitive which is IMHO what the arbitrary restrictions for IP allocations

for minimum's or maximum's is borne from. I personally have yet to see
a definition that is valid, as to what constitutes a "Toy ISP". Though I have
seen such a derogatory term used some time ago by folks like Dave Crocker,
and Kent Crispin.

So I believe that at some point in time and possibly in the near future,
anti-trust law's will be applied to such ludicrous IP allocation practices
or policies any RIR or LIR would make or otherwise impose on ISP's
or even other network Providers. Joint class action law suites of
the Anti-trust become a very protracted affair as well as very expensive
to the looser... I hope RIR's and LIR's recognize this lest they wish to
suffer the consequences with such inane policies as so far seem to be
put into effect for both IPv4 and IPv6...

>
>
> regards,
> Sascha Luck
>
> --
> Eirconnect | voice: 353 21 2307195
> NSC Campus | fax: 353 21 2307197
> Mahon, Cork | mailto:sascha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Ireland | http://www.eirconnect.net

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827




		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>