Hi Leo On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 22:04, Leo Vegoda <l...@vegoda.org> wrote: > > Dear Denis, > > Our processes don't move super fast. This is partly deliberate. We > don't want to railroad the community. It is also practical. There are > actions to be carried out between the end of one phase and the start > of another. > > The proposers have taken account of the "significant comments or > changes [...] suggested during the Discussion Phase." They have been > preparing a draft RIPE Document with help from the RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC has been developing an impact analysis. They > understandably don't start that work until there's a decision on > whether the proposal will move forward. > > All of these things take some time to accomplish. That is why there is > a small gap between the formal end of the Discussion phase and the > start of the Review phase. >
The delays are understandable. Maybe that should be clearly reflected in the PDP process. > Your objections have not been ignored. We will schedule time in Rome > to discuss the objections you have raised. I look forward to that (remotely). cheers denis > > Kind regards, > > Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 04:00, denis walker <ripede...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Leo, Colleagues > > > > I am both saddened and yet not surprised by this announcement to move > > this proposal to the review phase. It doesn't seem to matter what > > anyone says, I suspect this proposal will be approved. You included a > > link to the Policy Development Process (ripe-781). Pity you have not > > followed it. Now suggesting we follow a process, Jim Reid will argue I > > am trying to turn RIPE into some "process heavy organisation". But the > > PDP is a policy. So do we get to pick and choose which bits of which > > policies we apply or ignore? If that is the case why not just dump all > > policy and work to a general understanding. It might be more honest. > > > > Let's walk through the PDP as defined in ripe-781. Starting with '2. > > The Process'. > > > > "These phases are detailed below with proposed timelines for the > > various stages. These may differ for individual proposals, but the > > actual timelines must be documented." > > > > In the opening email Angela stated that the four week Discussion Phase > > will run until 3 October 2023. > > > > "At the end of each phase of the process, one of the chairs of the > > relevant WG will summarise the state of discussion on the WG mailing > > list." > > > > This has not been done. > > > > "In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the > > proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with > > supporting arguments and then addressed adequately by the proposer or > > by any supporter of the proposal." > > > > I have objected to this proposal on several grounds. I have justified > > my objections with significant supporting arguments. A number of > > people have supported the principle of my objections. Some people who > > initially gave the proposal a "+1" response have since withdrawn that > > support based on my objections. Neither the proposers, nor their > > supporters (the +1 brigade), have addressed my objections. Even worse > > than that, the proposers still deny that this proposal changes > > anything substantially with regard to address policy. They still claim > > it does not allow anything to be done that cannot already be done. I > > have adequately shown this argument to be false. Neither the proposers > > nor their supporters have even acknowledged this fact. A number of > > people have agreed that such a fundamental change to address policy > > should not be introduced as a (hidden) side effect of another, > > apparently inconsequential, change. If such a change is to be > > introduced, which may or may not have merits of its own, it should be > > openly discussed as a separate topic. Given that these objections are > > highly significant, and that they have been completely ignored by the > > proposers and supporters and not "addressed adequately", the chairs of > > the AP-WG cannot declare an initial consensus and move this proposal > > to the review phase. > > > > In '2.2 Discussion Phase' it says: > > > > "If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, they > > need to produce a draft RIPE Document which should be published within > > four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase, before the proposal > > can be moved to the Review Phase." > > > > This has not been done. > > > > "The RIPE NCC will need to publish an impact analysis for the proposal > > 'before' it can be moved to the Review Phase." > > > > This has not been done. > > > > I am raising these issues today as it is the last day of the > > discussion phase according to the diagram in Appendix A of ripe-781. > > Even though the diagram does not agree with the text in ripe-781. I > > have allowed the 5 weeks after the discussion phase shown in the > > diagram, rather than the 4 weeks stated in the text. > > > > This proposal cannot be moved to the review phase under the current > > circumstances, if we are actually following the PDP policy. > > > > Let me summarise my objections. The proposer claims this is an > > inconsequential change to address policy that does not permit anything > > to be done that cannot already be done. That has been proven to be a > > false claim. This is a major change to address policy that will > > undermine the whole concept of the public registry that we have > > understood for the last 30 years. Regardless of the merits of such a > > major change, we cannot allow such a change based on a few "+1" > > comments from a handful of the small group of people who dominate and > > control all policy decisions in this region. AFAIK neither the > > proposer, nor the RIPE NCC, nor the proposal supporters have made any > > attempt to reach out to other stakeholder groups who use the RIPE > > Database to inform them of this discussion, advise them of the > > potential consequences and invite them to join this discussion. > > Stakeholder groups like LEAs, government regulators, private > > investigators, abuse management organisations, security community, > > researchers, and others (who the Database Task Force never > > identified). > > > > cheers > > denis > > > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 03:51, Leo Vegoda <l...@vegoda.org> wrote: > > > > > > Dear WG, > > > > > > The Discussion Phase of policy proposal 2023-04 "Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR > > > status for IPv4 PA assignments" has now ended. Many thanks to all for > > > your comments. > > > > > > The proposal will now move forward to the Review Phase. > > > > > > The RIPE NCC will prepare an impact analysis and a draft RIPE Document. > > > > > > More details about the phases of the Policy Development Process are > > > published here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 > > > > > > You'll also see an announcement from the RIPE NCC soon. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs > > > > > > -- > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > > > your subscription options, please visit: > > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
