On 29/05/2025 0:11, Job Snijders wrote:
Dear all,
The timeline as published:
https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/process-for-the-review-of-icp-2-and-timeline/
covers a period of 2 years (2024 & 2025). At the end of step 7 (after
Oct 31, 2025) they state "Another cycle of review may be required if the
feedback indicates that substantial changes are required to the final
draft. This could result in the timeline being extended before the
process moves to step 8."
I am sure the committee would have no problem adding another 3-4 weeks
into the process but probably their fear is that this can spiral into
never-ending requests to add more time, all the while, the issue becomes
critical and time contingent.
Regards,
Hank
Dear all,
I recognize that my previous posting might be perceived as
uncharismatic, sorry, I'll try to do better. Here goes:
A process for review was established with a specific timeline for
discussion ("a period of approximately 6 weeks" [1]). It was perhaps
hard to foresee how many comments would appear and when they'd appear.
An issue I perceive is that the current schedule could end up leaving
little to no room for people to respond to other people's comments - if
such comments were made at the last moment.
Now, the next phase is scheduled to be the "Final Review", it'll be
awkward if that's the next best moment to react to comments made in the
previous phase "Community Feedback on the Draft Document". Worse, what
if yet again comments are submitted at the very last moment?
It might simultanously make people feel unheard and increase complexity
for the document authors!
I hope I now have clarified why I requested a deadline extension.
Perhaps going forward, we can take some inspiration from the FCC's
"Notice of Inquiry" process. A simplistic overview from what I
understand the NoI process to be: review cycles are composed of a
"comments period" (~ 1 month), then a "reply to comments period" (~ 1
month), and then deliberations. The scope of the "reply to comments"
period is intended to be narrower than the scope of the comments period
preceeding it.
I believe that an opportunity to comment on other people's comments in
such a way that this feedback too becomes part of the public concourse
and subsequent ASO AC deliberations will positively help all involved
navigating this process and result in an higher quality document.
The work the various representatives and volunteers are doing is
valuable and I'd like to express appreciation for what has been
accomplished so far. I'd specifically like to say thank you for your
service to Hervé, Constanze, and Andrei.
Kind regards,
Job
[1]:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250402040928/https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/process-for-the-review-of-icp-2-and-timeline/
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the
email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
