<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Michel Gauthier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mg@telepresse.com" target="_blank">mg@telepresse.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div class="">
At 15:15 06/03/2014, McTim wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br>
I will try to dispel your misunderstanding:</blockquote><br></div>
I am afraid you do not in considering IPv4 and POTS.<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><div class="">On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:31 PM,
Michel Gauthier
<<a href="mailto:mg@telepresse.com" target="_blank">mg@telepresse.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div><dl>
<dd>Dear Seth,<br><br>
</dd><dd><div class="">My question may look silly, but I try to find where lies the real
political problem.<br>
</div></dd><dd>as far I understand:<br>
</dd><dd>1. if one country decides to use a chunk of IP addresses for its
citizens nobody will deny themand the calls will be routed.</dd></dl></blockquote>
<br>
not answered. So, I presume as per previous positions on this list, the
response is yes, unless a RIR's person contradicts.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I did answer, and I used to work at one of the RIRs AND I was Chair of the Policy WG of another RIR, so I think I have a bit of clue.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What wasn't answered?</div><div><br></div><div>rgds,</div><div><br></div><div>McTim</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>