Dear address policy WG, one of our policy proposals (2009-08, IPv6 PI assignments for LIRs) has reached the end of the "last call" phase, and is now being discussed among the chairs of all working groups to decide whether the RIPE policy process has been properly followed, and whether consensus has been reached. The APWG chairs have decided that consensus has been reached, but the amount of participation from the WG was small enough that this was a difficult decision. - at the RIPE meeting, there was support for moving in this direction - in the discussion and review phases, there were 3 e-mails stating explicit support. One e-mail stated non-support, but that was referring to another mail with questions about the proposal, so it was a bit unclear on what exactly the "non-support" referred to. - during last call phase, there was exactly 1 (one) e-mail on the list, and that e-mail was a question regarding the proposal. We, as the WG chairs, think that the change proposed is useful to have a more workable policy for "real world" networks. Thus we have decided to move forward, even if the amount of participation was a bit low. In general, we really need to see a few more voices in the various phases - otherwise it's really hard to claim consensus. (Which means that we, as the WG chairs, will have to be a bit more proactive in getting responses out of YOU...). regards, Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 141055 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
Hi Gert & all, Gert Doering schrieb:
Dear address policy WG,
one of our policy proposals (2009-08, IPv6 PI assignments for LIRs) has reached the end of the "last call" phase, and is now being discussed among the chairs of all working groups to decide whether the RIPE policy process has been properly followed, and whether consensus has been reached. [...]
We, as the WG chairs, think that the change proposed is useful to have a more workable policy for "real world" networks. Thus we have decided to move forward, even if the amount of participation was a bit low.
If i didn't say that already: I do support the proposal :-)
In general, we really need to see a few more voices in the various phases - otherwise it's really hard to claim consensus. (Which means that we, as the WG chairs, will have to be a bit more proactive in getting responses out of YOU...).
My personal problem here is, that i actually do not always recall IF and WHAT i did comment on WHICH proposal and what phase of the PDP that was again. Call it bad Mail(linglist)-Archiv handling or getting old and forgetting things. Can't we have a nifty little Web 2.1 Tool on a RIPE webpage to track pros and cons and on a proposal with checkboxes to support it or not? :-) ... oh my god, am i turning into a manager? brrrr (Sounds funny, but that's the TRUE reason i probably miss raising my voice to several proposals.. i don't always have time to immediately reply and then i forget it, or i don't want to interrupt an ongoing rant about a proposal and wait until things cool off and then forget to answer and so on... is it only me? probably so *sigh* ) -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
Hi there, On 24 Sep 2009, at 19:56, Sascha Lenz <slz@baycix.de> wrote:
If i didn't say that already: I do support the proposal :-)
Thank you.
Can't we have a nifty little Web 2.1 Tool on a RIPE webpage to track pros and cons and on a proposal with checkboxes to support it or not? :-) ...
I like the idea of tools that encourage increased participation, but this tool feels a bit like a 'vote' rather than a consensus driven democracy. Andy
participants (3)
-
Andy Davidson -
Gert Doering -
Sascha Lenz