Hi I am sure we all agree that this Working Group is an "open forum where RIPE policy is made". However this is not immediately obvious from the name Local Internet Registry Working Group (LIR WG). There seem to be a couple of apparent problems... 1) The Purpose of the working group is not clear - mainly to newcomers, but also to others. 2) non-LIRs most likely have the impression that the Working Group is not open to them even though it is open to anyone with rational argument. Thus a proposal is to change the name of this working group to "Policy WG" or similar.. if only to remove any implications of the WG being a closed shop. This would also make it clear as to what the WG deals with. So - any comments? Please start a discussion on this in time for the upcoming meeting in Amsterdam where we hope there will be a consensus on this matter. Regards Denesh
In message <20030107163955.GA25064@cyberstrider.net>, Denesh Bhabuta <ripe-lists@stop.me.uk> writes
Thus a proposal is to change the name of this working group to "Policy WG" or similar.. if only to remove any implications of the WG being a closed shop. This would also make it clear as to what the WG deals with.
Something which at least implied "LIR and potential/applicant LIR" would dispel some of the confusion I encounter out there on the streets. (Not that I'm suggesting the list is used as a helpline...) -- Roland Perry | tel: +44 20 7645 3505 | roland@linx.org Director of Public Policy | fax: +44 20 7645 3529 | http://www.linx.net London Internet Exchange | mbl: +44 7909 68 0005 | /contact/roland
I am sure we all agree that this Working Group is an "open forum where RIPE policy is made".
My impression is also that a "policy" in the name would add transparency. Axel
"Registration Policies and Procedures WG" repop-wg ?
Hi, On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:40:56PM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
"Registration Policies and Procedures WG" repop-wg ?
I'm not sure whether people will understand "repop-wg" better than "lir-wg" :-) What about "policy-wg"? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55180 (54707) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
I'm not sure whether people will understand "repop-wg" better than "lir-wg" :-)
What about "policy-wg"?
There appears to be a focus of 'RIPE is the members' so why not 'ripe-wg' ? Peter
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Peter Galbavy wrote:
I'm not sure whether people will understand "repop-wg" better than "lir-wg" :-)
What about "policy-wg"?
There appears to be a focus of 'RIPE is the members' so why not 'ripe-wg' ?
RIPE is more than just the RIPE NCC members, so 'ripe-wg' would be a wrong name.
Peter
Rob
Hi all, I'm not convinced that changing the wg name will achieve the desired effect. Perhaps the effort should be put more into education of new (and current) LIR's as to what they can talk about on the lists? I do feel that the lists are greatly under utilised, maybe a monthly "did you know about the ripe mailing lists" could be sent to LIR's by the RIPE? Kind regards Matthew
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:06:35PM +0000, Matthew Robinson wrote:
I'm not convinced that changing the wg name will achieve the desired effect. Perhaps the effort should be put more into education of new (and current) LIR's as to what they can talk about on the lists?
what about the non-LIRs though? Regards Denesh
I think I'm a little concerned that we're in danger of falling into the 'Consignia' trap. For those who aren't in the UK, the Post Office here decided that the way forward was to change it's name to Consignia, which it did at huge expense only to realise that it made no difference to what the public thought of it and it's services. I believe it has since changed it's name back. My point I think is that we can change to name to something fantastic but if people don't know what they can discuss then we'll never get new people to join. Maybe we need a 'Mailing Lists' link on the RIPE website. Currently you have to dig under Working Groups, which I think puts a lot of people off joining. Promoting the working groups as being open and 'hey, come join us' is, in my view, a better use of effort than name changing. All the best Matthew
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:06:35PM +0000, Matthew Robinson wrote:
I'm not convinced that changing the wg name will achieve the desired effect. Perhaps the effort should be put more into education of new (and current) LIR's as to what they can talk about on the lists?
what about the non-LIRs though?
Regards Denesh
--On 9. januar 2003 12:58 +0000 Matthew Robinson <matthew@crescent.org.uk> wrote: | I think I'm a little concerned that we're in danger of falling into the | 'Consignia' trap. For those who aren't in the UK, the Post Office here | decided that the way forward was to change it's name to Consignia, which | it did at huge expense only to realise that it made no difference to | what the public thought of it and it's services. I believe it has since | changed it's name back. | | My point I think is that we can change to name to something fantastic but | if people don't know what they can discuss then we'll never get new | people to join. While I have quite some sympathy for this particular point of view, I would like to point out that the cost of changing the name of the wg is not that high. I have experienced quite some confusion over the years since the split between local-ir@ripe.net (now closed list for local-ir's) lir-wg@ripe.net (now open list for matters of concern to local-ir's) now over the last couple of years the wg charter is less "matters of concern" to local-ir's and more "open forum for making policy" whats the harm in reflecting that in the name ? | Maybe we need a 'Mailing Lists' link on the RIPE website. Currently you | have to dig under Working Groups, which I think puts a lot of people off | joining. Promoting the working groups as being open and 'hey, come join | us' is, in my view, a better use of effort than name changing. Why not both ? -hph
RIPE is more than just the RIPE NCC members, so 'ripe-wg' would be a wrong name.
Sorry to bring up a previous discussion, but this contradicts what has been said on the thread(s) about membership fees. Can someone (Rob ...) please clarify what RIPE and RIPE-NCC are ? Peter
My, I hope reasonably correct and not too long winded comments: On the website there are some definitions that can be helpful. http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/ http://www.ripe.net/ripe/about/index.html The fact that they are both often refered to as RIPE and that they share a URL has often caused confusion. I worked there for a long time and often spent my cycles trying to explain the difference to people. RIPE NCC is a "Network Coordination Centre" that, amongst other things, distributes IP addresses and AS#'s to it's members. These are typically the ISP's who need these resources. I personally always try and refer to the organisation as "the NCC" rather than "RIPE". The NCC has members who pay membership fees and gain neutral services for those fees. The services are defined/agreed by membership via activity plans etc. RIPE Meetings, together with the working groups mailing lists and RIPE documents etc. constitute "RIPE". It is a much wider community than the NCC membership, consisting of anyone who wishes to participate. Many NCC members, called "Local Internet Registries" are also participants in RIPE. You "participate" in RIPE rather than being a "member" as it doesn't have a formal organisational structure. RIPE also covers many more topics than NCC related ones, in theory a wg could be created on any topic directly relevant to the Internet community and it's operations. Because of the large amount of NCC members that participate in RIPE and the extension to envelope a wider community, RIPE has traditionally been, and IMHO still is, the logical "place" to discuss and develop the policies that the NCC uses. Hence the lir-wg. The name of the group may, or may not, be an optimal choice but I tend to agree that making the fact that it is an open forum widespread knowledge is I think a more important issue than what we name it. The "NCC" does a lot of work mentioning the lir-wg wherever it sends staff and I think the website is fairly clear. It's important that all of us as a community also let others know about RIPE and it's various working groups to others. If people have good ideas on how to spread "the gospel" about both RIPE and more specifically the Lir-wg I think all of us in the community would be glad to partake. JC
RIPE is more than just the RIPE NCC members, so 'ripe-wg' would be a wrong name.
PG> Sorry to bring up a previous discussion, but this contradicts what has been PG> said on the thread(s) about membership fees. PG> Can someone (Rob ...) please clarify what RIPE and RIPE-NCC are ? PG> Peter
On 08.01 17:46, Gert Doering wrote:
I'm not sure whether people will understand "repop-wg" better than "lir-wg" :-)
What about "policy-wg"?
"RIPE Policy WG" suggests much too broad a charter, policies can be about anything. Also the WG charter is about procedures as much as it is about policy. Daniel
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 16:39:55 +0000, Denesh Bhabuta wrote:
So - any comments? Please start a discussion on this in time for the upcoming meeting in Amsterdam where we hope there will be a consensus on this matter. What about "LIR-policy-WG", which partially continues the old name (as we are really talking about LIR's and RIPE's policy to them and how they propagate it as their policy) and adds the "policy" to open the shop?
Best Regards Oliver Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany oliver@bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0
participants (11)
-
Axel Pawlik -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Denesh Bhabuta -
Gert Doering -
Hans Petter Holen -
John L Crain -
Matthew Robinson -
Oliver Bartels -
Peter Galbavy -
Rob Blokzijl -
Roland Perry