Hi, On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 09:46:08AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
So the party line is "we need to push that through, via whatever channels it takes. PDP concluded in the wrong way so we ask others who are hopefully more favorable to our proposal."?
This specific case is a bit more complex, given that the work on the certificate infrastructure *was* mandated by the RIPE community (some 4 or 5 years ago when the topic came up and the plenary said "well, please go ahead and build a prototype") and has been on the budget and activity plan since then. So the NCC is spending money for something that seems to be "ok" according to who is paying for it (the members, which are part of the community as well). Now some parts of the community seem to say "don't go there" (simplified). Now what? Ignore the members, who said "go, spend the money for this!", or ignore the community? We've dug us into a nice rathole, and among the possible alternatives, I can't see anything better than "asking the members for a vote on NCC activity". (Note that, strictly speaking, certificates are not purely "address policy" [aka 'who can get numbers under which conditions?'] but more "business processes", and as such, to have 2008-08 on APWG's plate was always a bit problematic) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279