[address-policy-wg] Re: the post-mortem on 2008-09

+1 on everythign said below.

My understanding is indeed that in order for a policy to be accepted there needs
to be concensus - in the case where there is non the policy gets rejected and not
pushed to some other body for a ruling. Not having consensus is *the* ruling for
not implementing a proposal it is not a lack of a ruling on a proposal.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Jasper Jans
Team Leader Network Operations
Sr. Network Engineer

T: 088 - 00 68 152
F: 088 - 00 68 001
M: 06 - 218 26 380
E: jasper.jans at espritxb.nl

EspritXB
Monitorweg 1, 1322 BJ  Almere
Postbus 60043, 1320 AA  Almere

T: 088 00 68 000        KvK: 1717 7850
F: 088 00 68 001
W: http://www.espritxb.nl

http://www.linkedin.com/companies/espritxb
http://twitter.com/EspritXB

EspritXB levert traditionele spraakdiensten en IP-gebaseerde diensten zoals VoIP, internettoegang, VPN, pinnen, alarm en managed hosting aan MKB Nederland.


-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Roesen
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:46 AM
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: the post-mortem on 2008-09

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 01:15:01AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
> It should be patently clear RIPE cannot take a decision about address
> certification any time soon, if ever.

The outcome of the PDP is that there is no consensus to implement
address certification. To me, that's a decision of the RIPE community,
against address certification.

I'm not saying that I'm totally happy with the consequences, and I'm
certainly not happy about the PDP process taking that long.

> So with that context in mind, what do we do now?

Accept the decision of the RIPE community, with the consequences it has,
and work on ideas how to mitigate the negative ones.

> For some definition of
> "we". I think Nigel's suggestion is not just sensible, it has to be the
> next best (or least worst) option. Feel free to make better suggestions...

So the party line is "we need to push that through, via whatever
channels it takes. PDP concluded in the wrong way so we ask others who
are hopefully more favorable to our proposal."?

Don't set precedence ignoring the PDP outcome by trying to work around
it. THAT opens a whole can of worms I really don't want to see
unleashed.

Best regards,
Daniel

--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0




Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer