[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 05:09:08PM +0100, mark.h.mcfadden at bt.com wrote:
> >> Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew 
> >> their statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements
> >> are already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust 
> >> their position.  Which is not the way to constructively go about 
> >> changing policies.
> 
> Just seems plain wrong.  I wonder where you got this idea.

This is the way it has been received by the readers of this list (not only
me).

I need to reword, and apologize - there are, of course, active participants
on this mailing list that are working for ETNO members and that take
part in the RIPE processes as concerned individuals.  Which is very welcome.

What is fairly ill-received is cast-into-stone ETNO "statements of autority"
- statements like this one:

------- snip --------
ETNO, in coming to the position that it did, considered the transfer issue from
all angles, and the points that you raised in your e-mail were part of that
consideration. ETNO will continue to contribute the RIPE mailing list in the
future but see no reason at this stage to change its position.
------- snip --------

This can be read as "you can talk all you want, but we've decided!" - and
this has been, as I wrote, ill-received.


> The suggestion that ETNO can't adjust their position is also incorrect.
> ETNO did adjust their position in response to the feedback and
> discussion on the mailing list after the Amsterdam presentation.  The
> LIRs who are a part of ETNO, it seems to me, are linked by a set of
> common interests and shared circumstances and very naturally talk
> amongst each other on policy issues that matter to them.  My problem
> with your attitude toward ETNO is that you seem to ignore the fact that
> people talk about RIPE policy development in many places; not just on
> the RIPE address policy group mailing list.  When a group of LIRs come
> together and say something about policy developments in RIPE, I think
> the chair should be welcoming the input rather than disrespecting it in
> public.

I would very much welcome all ETNO members to discuss the matters *here* 
- they might even have different opinions regarding proposals.

Discussing RIPE policy matters outside of RIPE, and then presenting a
"joint opinion" statement is not the best way to participate in the 
process of forming a policy - and it makes it very hard to work with
these folks to come to a common way forward.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20081008/ff9d7aa7/attachment.sig>