[address-policy-wg] restricting future policy proposals July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:50:59AM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> How does one go about restricting future policy proposals?

Re-read https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642, this is not
easily doable within the PDP (which makes sense).  

One could argue that "The proposal is usually submitted via the chair of 
that WGs" (2.1, "Creating a proposal") would give the WG chair veto 
power, but that's not the idea here - it's "the WG chair *helps* with the 
submission" (and while we've tried talking proposers out of particularily
contentious proposals before, when they insisted in going forward, we've
let them gain their own experiences...).

So, the one true way would be to call for WG consensus on guidelines how
a future proposal *should* be (OTOH there might be reasons for having
exceptions, hard to predict...) and measure future proposals on these
guidelines.

(In case it's not obvious why we, as the WG, would *want* to go there:
what is happening right now is totally killing our policy development
process - heated and repetitive discussions, with lots of selfish or 
irrational arguments, effectively burning valuable attention time from 
those who are still interested in contributing to the common goal of 
a sustainable Internet, working mostly well for all of us)

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 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160620/7ecbd108/attachment.sig>