We've been thinking about this for some time and attempting to find a way 
through the various comments and messages in regards to 2017-02.

We believe the best option at this point is to extend the review phase of this 
proposal for a further 4 weeks as we do not believe rough consensus has been 
reached. However we also do not believe that there has been sufficient clear 
argument to reject the proposal.

We think that during this time it would be useful if those who engaged in the 
discussion but did not express a preference could do so.

It would also be useful if those who commented on the first version of the 
proposal, especially those who objected, still objected after the second 
version was published.

It should also be noted that the NCC have laid out the method by which they 
would plan to implement this proposal, so we do not believe that discussion 
around alternative methods nor additional checks is germane. It is also clear 
that the ARC will be used in conjunction with the automated checks. It is also 
clear that this will not require "make work" from any admins to answer.

Finally we need to address the objections around the possible implications of 
organisations *not* following this policy. It is clear that 2017-02 does not 
attempt to introduce any additional processes nor change how the NCC would act 
in cases where policies are not followed. We believe this has been clarified. 
If members of the community have an issue with these procedures then we think 
that's a separate discussion, rather than a valid reason to object to 2017-02

Other than those listed above, there was a feeling expressed that this will not 
make any meaningful difference. Both the RIPE NCC and the proposers have said 
that this work to improve the quality of data will be greatly appreciated. We 
would also mention that policies can be further amended in the future.

So, if everyone could take a look at the latest version of 2017-02 again that 
would be appreciated. 

If you have already stated your support there is no need to do so. 

If you are opposed, then please consider the above and the various discussions 
and see if you are still opposed to this version of the proposal. If so, can 
you please state which reasons for opposition have not been clarified nor 

Obviously if you haven't stated a preference either way, as I mention above, 
this is your opportunity to do so!


Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG

Brian Nisbet 
Network Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

Reply via email to