nanog mailing list archives
Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
From: Andy Davidson <andy () nosignal org>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:07:41 +0000
On 01/03/2010 14:04, Arjan van der Oest wrote:
Andy wrote:Competition is not a bad thing.Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for my integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the government makes me ask them for some integers.Assuming that ITU would become a nationwide alternative RIR, you still have the choice to approach NCC, wouldn't you?
Why would this automatically be the case ? If governments were required to distribute addresses via the national regulator, then the freedom of choice would NOT be the case.
Not sure if Pepsi would be the right comparison for the ITU ;-)
My point entirely. :-) Andy
Current thread:
- Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Andy Davidson (Mar 01)
- Message not available
- Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Andy Davidson (Mar 01)
- RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Arjan van der Oest (Mar 01)
- Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Jorge Amodio (Mar 01)
- Message not available
- RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Arjan van der Oest (Mar 01)
- Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Andy Davidson (Mar 01)
- Message not available
- Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Jon Morby | fido (Mar 01)