[address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:28:00PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> I know, but if unclear points or discrepancies are discovered in the actual stage, how we resolve them?

Technically, if *new* (and significant) counterarguments come up in Last 
Call, the proposal can be returned to Discussion or Review Phase at the end.  

In practice, I think this only happened once.

"I read this differently from everyone else and I find it confusing" is not 
something I'd consider "new and significant", though, unless this reading
is shared by a wider group.

> I understand that the PDP may have imperfections and we never realized that, not sure if it is the case.

Oh, the PDP is far from perfect.  Most annoyingly, it takes a hell of a lot
of work to get even the smallest change done, because there are so many
stages where proposals can stall...

Changing the PDP itself is not something we can do here in AP, though - that
is something the plenary needs to agree, as the PDP governs all working
groups.

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: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180119/83b89e0a/attachment.sig>