Hi all, I've changed the subject, because I want to talk here in general about our policy process, not any specific policy.
I've tried to find where in our process, states that in addition to the policy text itself, other inputs during the PDP matter. If there is such confirmation, could the NCC tell me how to find it? I understand that this may have been our "practice", but maybe we did wrong. Let me explain why I think is wrong, and consequently we need to correct it. Let's suppose I'm an organization asking for the first time IPv6 space, I will find the actual policy at https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-684 I read across it, and I obviously will decide, based on my needs what choices I've to apply for. I've not followed the PDP since the first time we discussed an IPv6 policy, so I'm missing all the policy proposals text, arguments, rationales, impact analysis, etc. Because that, I'm applying with a different view from someone that has been for ages in the addressing policy list and following it, and possible not taking advantages of perspectives that are "in between lines" in the policy text, which may make a huge difference on my request vs a "follower" of the PDP. I would agree with that (using not only the policy text, but also all the PDP documents) IF when I go to the ripe-684 document, I've direct links in every section of the policy text, pointing to the PDP documents that have been used to modify that section. I hope everybody understand what I mean, not sure if is so easy to explain. Now, is that realistic? It will make our policy text so difficult to read ... and a very very very long (and always increasing) document. So, my conclusion: what it matters is only policy text, other documents are relevant to explain it, but not to add "modifications" to the reading of that text so not conflicts should be there (unless undiscovered). I agree that we are humans and we can make mistakes, and we may need to go to new rounds of PDP to correct that, new proposals, or whatever, but even if it takes some extra work, policy text must be refined if discrepancies are perceived. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Marco Schmidt <[email protected]> Fecha: martes, 16 de enero de 2018, 16:05 Para: <[email protected]> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) Dear Max, On 2018-01-15 18:23:42 CET, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote: > As said before somewhere (I'm not sure wether on a RIPE meeting or > here on the list), the RS folks said, that they use the proposal text > as well as the summary/rationale as guidance what is allowed and what > isn't. > > Maybe Ingrid, Andrea, Marco, * from the NCC can comment on that? > Yes, this is correct. Whenever there is a question about the interpretation of RIPE Policies, we can refer to proposal summary as well to the impact analysis to ensure the correct understanding of the policy and its intent. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
