[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)

Rob Evans wrote:
> This is perhaps more wordsmithing rather than a fundamental comment on
> the proposal, which sounds like A Good Thing.

I also feel the proposal is A Good Thing, and I support it.

As far as the comment is concerned, here are my 2 Euro cents:

> (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 then the proposal will be withdrawn automatically in RIPE too.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?

Well, in my opinion this is a very good question.

I think the proposal 2010-03 assumes that the global policy proposal that
has been accepted by the RIPE community and has been put in this new state,
has been accepted only on condition it will eventually become a global policy
and has no value if it remains a regional policy. In such a case, the automatic
withdrawal in case of failure to become a global policy is the right thing
to do.

However, if the conditionally accepted policy has value as a regional
policy too, then it may not be a good idea to automatically withdraw it.
This is an argument in favour of deleting (2), as the RIPE WG Chairs
could decide in accordance with (1) what to do in such a situation.

This also raises the question whether it would be useful for the RIPE WG
Chairs  to be able to decide to keep a policy that is in this new state as
a(n accepted) regional policy as it is (i.e without any further changes).
In other words, the question is whether we want the RIPE WG Chairs to be
able to move the policy from this new state to the Accepted state without
having to consult the community, even if the policy would not become global.
At present this possibility is not there, so either it becomes a _global_
policy as it is, or it goes back to the PDP (or it is withdrawn, of course).
This could be solved by adding this possibility to (1).
I personally think we should add this possibility.

> (Alternatively, is the first
> one needed?)

Well, I definitely think it is important to have it there, as (2) deals
only with the case when there is no chance to get a global policy in the end,
while (1) deals with the case when some fine tuning could "save" the proposal.
This fine tuning suggestion can come from the RIPE WG Chairs or from the
community (when it is sent back in the same version).

> 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 personally would be inclined to delete (2) and extend (1) as suggested
above.

> (As an aside, I'd remove 'all' from the first paragraph...)

I would also remove it, but I see no harm in having it there.
I am sure the RIPE WG Chairs as a group will be able to reach consensus
on what they recommend to do.

Best regards,
Janos