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

On 28 Jul 2011, at 01:43, Sascha Luck wrote:

> Why not, then,  abandon the inconvenient PDP at all and make any and  
> all decisions via a vote at AGM?
> Clearly, if any discussions that don't produce the desirable outcome  
> are
> simply taken to a different forum, the PDP is little more than a  
> farce and a waste of time?

You're jumping to very wrong conclusions and seem to have ignored  
what's been said.

The NCC has been spending money and resources on address certification  
for a few years now. This has been done at the request of RIPE who  
asked for a prototype. So development has been under way in parallel  
with getting 2008-08 through the PDP. The membership have approved the  
production of this prototype because for a few years it's been in the  
activity plan that gets approved at each AGM.

We're now in a situation where the PDP's been followed and 2008-08 is  
dead. There is no policy on address certification. However the NCC has  
a mandate from the membership through the activity plan to continue  
with the prototype and its infrastructure. We're in a paradox where  
the community has killed a policy on address certification while  
simultaneously authorising the NCC to develop such a system. [Has  
anybody seen Schrodinger's cat wandering around? It must in be here  
somewhere. :-)] There now needs to be a vote by the NCC membership to  
take a decision which will normalise that situation. And unlike RIPE's  
PDP, the AGM shouldn't take 3 years to decide.