This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] RIPE policy making
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] FW: Policy Reciprocity
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] FW: Policy Reciprocity
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Wed Oct 21 14:22:52 CEST 2020
> On 21 Oct 2020, at 13:10, ripedenis--- via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > > It is not only address policy they can veto. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I understood they can veto any policy they don't like. Anyone is free to participate in RIPE policy making. Nobody has a veto though because we make decisions by consensus. There’s a notional veto at the impact assessment stage of the PDP. For instance if the NCC says “this proposal is unworkable/illegal/too expensive - don't do it”. I paraphrase.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] FW: Policy Reciprocity
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] FW: Policy Reciprocity
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]