This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dave Wilson
dave.wilson at heanet.ie
Thu Apr 22 12:08:16 CEST 2010
Hi Rob, Rob Evans wrote: > This is perhaps more wordsmithing rather than a fundamental comment on > the proposal, which sounds like A Good Thing. Thanks! > (1): >> If the global policy proposal does not reach consensus or a >> substantial change is made on the proposal in one (or more) of the >> other RIR communities after the proposal was put in "Accepted pending >> consensus in other RIR communities" in RIPE, all the RIPE WG Chairs >> as a group will determine how to proceed. They can decide to withdraw >> the proposal or send it back to one of the previous phases of the >> RIPE PDP with or without a new version of the proposal. > > (2): >> If the global policy proposal fails to receive acceptance at the end >> of the global policy development process that is evaluated by the ASO >> Address Council (can be due to having substantial differences in the >> proposed text in different RIR communities or due to that the >> proposal failed to reach consensus in one of the RIR communities) >> then the proposal will be withdrawn automatically in RIPE too. The >> RIPE NCC will make the necessary announcements. > > Is the second of these paragraphs needed? (Alternatively, is the first > one needed?) They appear to cover similar events, so for clarity > shouldn't it either be up to the WG chairs 'collective' or the output of > the ASO AC? I do see two subtly different circumstances here. The first is that a change has occurred during the process that gives the RIPE community reason to consider an amendment (or withdrawl) of the proposal. I think it's appropriate that this is triggered from inside the RIPE region. The second is something that I expect will only occur at the end of an unsuccessful process, and allows the RIPE NCC to tidy up once this has been established. We could certainly ask the WG chairs to rubber-stamp this, but I think it is a fairly clear state so I'm not sure there's much benefit to be gained from adding that step. All the best, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Senior Network Engineer HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +353-1-660 9040 fax: +353-1-660 3666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ H323 GDS:0035301101738 PGP: 1024D/C757ADA9
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]