Hi Mirjam, all, First of all, I want to thank for this extensive work.
I've read the link that you provided and the documents linked to it, and I agree with most of the points, while I still think there are missing points or issues. I'm going to discuss here only the most important ones, I may be missing others at this point, so I can come back later on if needed. 1) I agree that it doesn't make sense the text about the ownership of the PDP. However, I don't think (point 3 in your link) that there is any doubt about the way the PDP needs to be updated. In all the RIRs, the PDP is updated by the PDP, and we have been there already a couple of years ago (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04 resulted in the RIPE-710)! Now, if we want to make it more explicit, I've no issue with that. 2) Not always we have "problem" (point 4, 1st p.) and thus it means a problem statement can be acceptable for some folks and not others, so clearly this must not be in the hands of a few (like WG chairs), but part of the consensus. For example, sometimes (2018-04 is a good example of that), we are adopting policy changes, or even PDP changes, because there is a need to improve the clarify of the text and avoid different interpretations, which can be a very bad thing. 3) Following in point 4, I agree that consensus definition must support anonymous the same way we have anonymous participants in the list. I "personally" don't like that, but I need to accept that if I accept the concept of consensus and I see a valid justification for that: someone could have a view that is against his/her employer and if he/she uses real name, it may get problems in the job. I really prefer anonymous than false identities, or use as puppets other community members. Now, what I disagree is in what degree the decision of the WG chairs to continue the discussion. This is a much bigger problem. 4) I participate in all the RIRs PDPs, and the low number of participants is quite usual. In fact, it may seem that ARIN and RIPE have more active participation, but if you look at it as % of membership, we are actually "worst" than other RIRs! In other RIRs there have been studies and work to try to resolve that: all failed, and I don't think anything will work. The problem is that even resource holders don't see the PDP as part of their job. I think is that way, because whatever we do in the PDP may affect your resources or the way you "use them". I've been insulted in other RIRs even to say that is part of their job and it must be an obligation to participate, but I really don't care, I prefer to express honestly my views. A few weeks ago, I was already considering to send a new policy proposal to make some other changes in the PDP. I will start working on that, in case others will like to participate. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/2/21 11:58, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" <[email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> escribió: Dear colleagues, The RIPE Working Group Chairs met in January to review the appeal and to exchange experiences with regard to the RIPE Policy Development Process. We also discussed the meeting plan for the upcoming RIPE 82 Meeting. You can find a summary from the meeting here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/wg-chairs/working-group-chair-collective/summaries/working-group-chair-interim-meeting-summary Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair ********************************************** 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.
