+1 on everythign said below. My understanding is indeed that in order for a policy to be accepted there needs to be concensus - in the case where there is non the policy gets rejected and not pushed to some other body for a ruling. Not having consensus is *the* ruling for not implementing a proposal it is not a lack of a ruling on a proposal. Met vriendelijke groet, Jasper Jans Team Leader Network Operations Sr. Network Engineer T: 088 - 00 68 152 F: 088 - 00 68 001 M: 06 - 218 26 380 E: jasper.jans@espritxb.nl EspritXB Monitorweg 1, 1322 BJ Almere Postbus 60043, 1320 AA Almere T: 088 00 68 000 KvK: 1717 7850 F: 088 00 68 001 W: http://www.espritxb.nl http://www.linkedin.com/companies/espritxb http://twitter.com/EspritXB EspritXB levert traditionele spraakdiensten en IP-gebaseerde diensten zoals VoIP, internettoegang, VPN, pinnen, alarm en managed hosting aan MKB Nederland. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Roesen Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:46 AM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: the post-mortem on 2008-09 On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 01:15:01AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
It should be patently clear RIPE cannot take a decision about address certification any time soon, if ever.
The outcome of the PDP is that there is no consensus to implement address certification. To me, that's a decision of the RIPE community, against address certification. I'm not saying that I'm totally happy with the consequences, and I'm certainly not happy about the PDP process taking that long.
So with that context in mind, what do we do now?
Accept the decision of the RIPE community, with the consequences it has, and work on ideas how to mitigate the negative ones.
For some definition of "we". I think Nigel's suggestion is not just sensible, it has to be the next best (or least worst) option. Feel free to make better suggestions...
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."? Don't set precedence ignoring the PDP outcome by trying to work around it. THAT opens a whole can of worms I really don't want to see unleashed. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer