Carlos (and Randy, and Sara), I misspoke somewhat earlier. Yes, the Co-Chairs and the NCC Policy Officer have memory, but it is during the Review Phase that a measure of consensus is gathered and this is especially important when a new draft is issued. So I would ask, after the new draft is sent out (real soon now) and indeed after the NCC Impact Analysis in May, that those who have expressed opinions before either restate or state new opinions as much as possible. If this is "the new draft does not address my concerns and they still stand" then that is fine. Obviously the more detail the better. Similarly expressions of support can be restated, but as mentioned, many times, it's not a vote, it's a discussion to gauge consensus. As to your specific point, Sara, when the Co-Chairs work to declare consensus or lack thereof we will (with the wonderful support of Marco), attempt to lay out the various arguments, broadly who said what and why we're saying what we're saying. This is a non-trivial piece of work and it is properly done at that point. Of course the WG can disagree with that determination based on the discussions and the evidence presented. In regards to the difference between the two drafts of the proposal, when v2.0 is published, you will be able to compare here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-03 I hope this helps, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
-----Original Message----- From: Carlos Friaças <cfriacas@fccn.pt> Sent: Friday 26 April 2019 09:50 To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Policy Proposal 2019-03 Update
Hi Brian, All,
This is a doubt i have about the PDP:
If concerns are addressed within a new text version, aren't people that have opposed the previous version required to state if they agree or not that their concerns were addressed...?
If those opposing remain silent the default interpretation will be that they are still opposing the proposal, even if the text they have opposed to is not there anymore?
Can you please clarify?
Thanks, Carlos
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Brian Nisbet wrote:
(...)
one. can we assume that the co-chairs and marco have memory, or do we all need to restate our views, maybe even after reading a new
version?
Yes, you can assume this.
I mean, we would, of course, strongly suggest that people read the new version, as we're sure you all will, and we're sure the authors would appreciate knowing if this version is better or worse, from the point of view of the members of the WG, but yes, we have memory.
Obviously if we reach a Concluding Phase and the Co-Chairs determination is other than what any member believes it should be, there are further opportunities to comment at that point.
Thanks,
Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG