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

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 09:46:08AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> 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."?

This specific case is a bit more complex, given that the work on the
certificate infrastructure *was* mandated by the RIPE community (some
4 or 5 years ago when the topic came up and the plenary said "well, please
go ahead and build a prototype") and has been on the budget and activity 
plan since then.

So the NCC is spending money for something that seems to be "ok" according
to who is paying for it (the members, which are part of the community
as well).  

Now some parts of the community seem to say "don't go there" (simplified).

Now what?  Ignore the members, who said "go, spend the money for this!", 
or ignore the community?  We've dug us into a nice rathole, and among
the possible alternatives, I can't see anything better than "asking 
the members for a vote on NCC activity".

(Note that, strictly speaking, certificates are not purely "address 
policy" [aka 'who can get numbers under which conditions?'] but more
"business processes", and as such, to have 2008-08 on APWG's plate was 
always a bit problematic)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

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