[address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01

At 12:37 PM 04-12-08 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:21:53PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > This was discussed many times at RIPE meetings.  Not at just one, but
> > > several.  The final decision to put this into the charging scheme was 
> made
> > > at the General Meeting in Dubai, but it was talked about at a couple 
> of others.
> >
> > excuse?  i thought decisions are made on list, not at meetings.
>
>This was one of the core problems of 2007-01 - the APWG can not decide
>on the charging scheme.  We can discuss things (which we did, here and
>in the meetings), but in the end, the charging scheme is decided by the
>RIPE members AGM - and it's one of the few things where we actually
>decide by *vote* in RIPE land.

I reviewed the draft agenda:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00671.html
but I have as yet to see any protocol from the address-policy-wg or from 
the AGM.

I did find this:
http://www.ripe.net/news/gm-october-2008.html
Interesting that 52 attendees out of 6000 RIPE members are able to make 
such a change.


>Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation
>contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme.  It was sent
>out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other
>LIRs if you can't attend yourself.

I am looking into why neither il.isoc and il.iucc did not receive the 
announcement.


>The majority of the LIRs that attended the meeting (or sent proxy votes)
>voted for the acceptance of the new charging scheme.

I wouldn't call 52 out of 6000 LIRs a substantial majority.

-Hank