On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 2:11 PM Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

Hi Jan,

Hi Tore,

On 11/01/24 13:27, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 1:11 PM Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
>
> After all, any LIR which prefers the RIPE NCC interpretation of the
> policy in this regard is may simply adhere to it and act accordingly,
> and this is commonly done today. Thus the RIPE NCC's
> interpretation of
> the policy – mistaken or not – ends up becoming the (de facto) way
> the
> policy is implemented anyway.
>
> This statement basically renders the point of a policy working group moot.

Not at all. Any working group member who is of the opinion that the RIPE
NCC is interpreting a RIPE Community policy incorrectly, is free to at
any point submit a policy proposal that clarifies the allegedly
misinterpreted policy text with the aim to make the RIPE NCC change its
procedures accordingly.

The RIPE NCC's Impact Analysis will then reveal whether or not the
proposed new policy text does attain its goal and that the RIPE NCC will
change its procedures as desired, should the proposal pass.

Finally, the proposal will need to reach (rough) consensus in order to
confirm that the RIPE Community does indeed concur with the proposer's
opinion that the old policy was interpreted incorrectly, and that the
RIPE NCC's procedures ought to change.

Absent this, the RIPE NCC's operationalisation of the policy will stay
as-is.

This would make sense if the argument was not so circular.

I also do not understand what makes it so hard to say that: "Yes, the current policy does state something else than NCC's interpretation of it does, and therefore current practice contradicts (or appears to contradict) policy. However, we, the proposers, believe that the current practice makes for the best policy, and therefore propose amending the policy to reflect practice."

Jan