Hi Leo, Colleagues I am both saddened and yet not surprised by this announcement to move this proposal to the review phase. It doesn't seem to matter what anyone says, I suspect this proposal will be approved. You included a link to the Policy Development Process (ripe-781). Pity you have not followed it. Now suggesting we follow a process, Jim Reid will argue I am trying to turn RIPE into some "process heavy organisation". But the PDP is a policy. So do we get to pick and choose which bits of which policies we apply or ignore? If that is the case why not just dump all policy and work to a general understanding. It might be more honest.
Let's walk through the PDP as defined in ripe-781. Starting with '2. The Process'. "These phases are detailed below with proposed timelines for the various stages. These may differ for individual proposals, but the actual timelines must be documented." In the opening email Angela stated that the four week Discussion Phase will run until 3 October 2023. "At the end of each phase of the process, one of the chairs of the relevant WG will summarise the state of discussion on the WG mailing list." This has not been done. "In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments and then addressed adequately by the proposer or by any supporter of the proposal." I have objected to this proposal on several grounds. I have justified my objections with significant supporting arguments. A number of people have supported the principle of my objections. Some people who initially gave the proposal a "+1" response have since withdrawn that support based on my objections. Neither the proposers, nor their supporters (the +1 brigade), have addressed my objections. Even worse than that, the proposers still deny that this proposal changes anything substantially with regard to address policy. They still claim it does not allow anything to be done that cannot already be done. I have adequately shown this argument to be false. Neither the proposers nor their supporters have even acknowledged this fact. A number of people have agreed that such a fundamental change to address policy should not be introduced as a (hidden) side effect of another, apparently inconsequential, change. If such a change is to be introduced, which may or may not have merits of its own, it should be openly discussed as a separate topic. Given that these objections are highly significant, and that they have been completely ignored by the proposers and supporters and not "addressed adequately", the chairs of the AP-WG cannot declare an initial consensus and move this proposal to the review phase. In '2.2 Discussion Phase' it says: "If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, they need to produce a draft RIPE Document which should be published within four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase, before the proposal can be moved to the Review Phase." This has not been done. "The RIPE NCC will need to publish an impact analysis for the proposal 'before' it can be moved to the Review Phase." This has not been done. I am raising these issues today as it is the last day of the discussion phase according to the diagram in Appendix A of ripe-781. Even though the diagram does not agree with the text in ripe-781. I have allowed the 5 weeks after the discussion phase shown in the diagram, rather than the 4 weeks stated in the text. This proposal cannot be moved to the review phase under the current circumstances, if we are actually following the PDP policy. Let me summarise my objections. The proposer claims this is an inconsequential change to address policy that does not permit anything to be done that cannot already be done. That has been proven to be a false claim. This is a major change to address policy that will undermine the whole concept of the public registry that we have understood for the last 30 years. Regardless of the merits of such a major change, we cannot allow such a change based on a few "+1" comments from a handful of the small group of people who dominate and control all policy decisions in this region. AFAIK neither the proposer, nor the RIPE NCC, nor the proposal supporters have made any attempt to reach out to other stakeholder groups who use the RIPE Database to inform them of this discussion, advise them of the potential consequences and invite them to join this discussion. Stakeholder groups like LEAs, government regulators, private investigators, abuse management organisations, security community, researchers, and others (who the Database Task Force never identified). cheers denis On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 03:51, Leo Vegoda <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear WG, > > The Discussion Phase of policy proposal 2023-04 "Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR > status for IPv4 PA assignments" has now ended. Many thanks to all for > your comments. > > The proposal will now move forward to the Review Phase. > > The RIPE NCC will prepare an impact analysis and a draft RIPE Document. > > More details about the phases of the Policy Development Process are > published here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 > > You'll also see an announcement from the RIPE NCC soon. > > Kind regards, > > Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
