Hi Jim,
El 13/5/20 12:35, "Jim Reid" <[email protected]> escribió: > On 13 May 2020, at 10:41, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > > "The Policy Compliance Dashboard” shows to each member its status of policy compliance, collected by means of a periodical review, automated as much as possible. The dashboard will show all possible details to match the policies and RSA, such as: > > * Contractual obligations (such as status of payments or documents). > * Lack of response from the member. > ... > * Tracking of repeated and/or continued policy violations. If an LIR is seriously delinquent in the ways listed above, what’s the point of putting that info in this proposed dashboard? The member won’t be paying attention to it, just like they’ve been ignoring the NCC’s invoices and requests for information. [Jordi] I've clearly explained in my email that it was basically a copy and paste from another RIR proposal, where they are missing things that in RIPE we have solved already. Thinks need to be read in context to make sense, and I think it makes sense to openly discuss ideas before coming into proposal, right? It’s not clear to me that this proposed dashboard is useful. What problem is it solving? Where’s the use case(s)? You’ve said the proposed policy compliance review would be automated as much as possible. But some aspects will involve making subjective judgments that cannot be automated - ie assessments of outdate whois info or lack of maintenance of the reverse delegation. We’d probably need the DNS WG to come up with some definitions or maybe a policy on lack of maintenance of reverse delegations. [Jordi] There are many LIRs and end users that don't follow policies evolutions. If this can be automated, they will get a notification. Probably RIPE NCC is doing many of those things, I stated that. Once there’s more clarity on this idea, I think it should be considered by the NCC Services WG. It appears to be a service thing. It doesn’t seem to be a policy matter at all and is therefore inappropriate for the AP WG. [Jordi] Responding also to your other/Nick email: I’m even more confused and struggling to understand how this is relevant to the AP WG. Could you please explain? [Jordi] Context. Marco presented this policy proposal from another RIR, I've explained it quickly and mention that I will email about it. In my email I also indicated that in my opinion is a services WG thing. My bad!, yes, I'm the first guy in the world that cross posted, in this case so to ensure where to follow the discussion. First of all, this dashboard thing is an operational service matter. Please clarify why you think it needs to be a policy issue. Next, if you wanted to know if the NCC is considering this dashboard idea, you could simply have asked them. Or raised the matter in the NCC Services WG. Have you done either of those things? If so, what was the response? [Jordi] I can talk in private with the NCC about this, but I prefer to chat in the WG, as the NCC is also participating there. I think it is a matter of transparency. They can tell us, we already do part of this, we could do the rest, or not interested, or whatever. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 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.
