[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Sander,

I know Gert and you very well, and I don’t have any doubt that it was not done in a “malicious” way, but I think the PDP has not been followed correctly.

Again, is not a matter of this concrete proposal, is a generic concern on the PDP application.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 13:28
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

    Hi Jordi,
    
    > I participate on IETF, and I know RFC7282, however I fail to see in our PDP that we are bound to that RFC?
    
    As Jim has said, the definition of consensus is determined by consensus :)  And for this working group the chairs apply consensus roughly based on that RFC.
    
    > I also just read again the PDP, and my understanding is that we are doing something different than what the process say, following
    > 
    > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642
    > 
    > I don’t see how a policy proposal that at the end of the review phase (maximum 4 weeks), has not reached consensus, as the only alternative is a “new” review phase, with a new version of the proposal:
    > 
    > From the PDP:
    > “The WG chair can also decide to have the draft RIPE Document edited and start a new Review Phase with a new version of the proposal.”
    
    In RIPE the chairs are allowed to use common sense and their own judgement when chairing a working group. Please don't try to make rules for everything, we're not lawyers, we're people trying to get work done in the best interests of this community.
    
    Cheers,
    Sander
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.