[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

Hi Gert

Thanks for your comments. But I think you have missed a couple of
important points.

It says in the PDP:
"In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the
proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with
supporting arguments and then addressed adequately by the proposer or
by any supporter of the proposal."

Let me edit that down a bit:
In all phases of the RIPE PDP...objections...addressed adequately...

So in the discussion phase my objections must be addressed adequately.
The proposers have not even acknowledged my objections and still
maintain the false view that this proposal is inconsequential.

Also you said I haven't suggested any significant change to the
proposal. My objections could be addressed by not removing the line:
"When an End User has a network using public address space this must
be registered separately with the contact details of the End User."
That would be a significant change.

cheers
denis

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 13:13, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 12:59:53PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
> > I am both saddened and yet not surprised by this announcement to move
> > this proposal to the review phase.
>
> As per the PDP, the proposer decides whether to move onward after
> discussion phase.  If the proposer sees value in having a NCC impact
> analysis, they might do so even if there was some opposition in
> discussion phase - because it might bring clarity on the merits of
> arguments either way.
>
> > It doesn't seem to matter what
> > anyone says, I suspect this proposal will be approved. You included a
> > link to the Policy Development Process (ripe-781). Pity you have not
> > followed it.
>
> The text could be a bit more clear here, but
>
>  "If the suggested comments and changes are not so significant as
>   to require a new Discussion Phase, the proposer and WG chairs can
>   decide to move the proposal to the next phase (Review Phase) with
>   a new version of the proposal incorporating the necessary edits."
>
> is what gives them the option to move forward - you didn't suggest
> massive edits, but to kill the proposal, which is still open.
>
> [..]
> > In '2.2 Discussion Phase' it says:
> >
> > "If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, they
> > need to produce a draft RIPE Document which should be published within
> > four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase, before the proposal
> > can be moved to the Review Phase."
>
> There is a draft document.  It does not say "a new draft document" here.
>
> (This text is relevant if there was no formal draft document at the
> beginning of the Discussion phase, which can be done "to test the waters"
> before writing up something)
>
> > This has not been done.
>
> It has.
>
> > "The RIPE NCC will need to publish an impact analysis for the proposal
> > 'before' it can be moved to the Review Phase."
> >
> > This has not been done.
>
> The proposal is not in Review Phase *yet*, and Leo did not suggest
> otherwise.
>
>   https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04
>
> does not say "in Review Phase".
>
> So indeed, the IA has not been published, but since it's not stating
> anywhere "in Review Phase", this is not a contradiction.  IAs can take
> time, so this is not an instant over-night thing in the best case, and
> there is no urgency.
>
> [..]
> > This proposal cannot be moved to the review phase under the current
> > circumstances, if we are actually following the PDP policy.
>
> It can.
>
> > Let me summarise my objections. The proposer claims this is an
> > inconsequential change to address policy that does not permit anything
> > to be done that cannot already be done. That has been proven to be a
> > false claim. This is a major change to address policy that will
> > undermine the whole concept of the public registry that we have
> > understood for the last 30 years.
>
> This, in particular, is *your* claim, which I'd like see either backed
> or dismissed by the impact analysis - I see this as on way "proven".
>
> So it's very useful to move forward to "Review Phase with a full IA".
>
>
> >  Regardless of the merits of such a
> > major change, we cannot allow such a change based on a few "+1"
> > comments from a handful of the small group of people who dominate and
> > control all policy decisions in this region. AFAIK neither the
> > proposer, nor the RIPE NCC, nor the proposal supporters have made any
> > attempt to reach out to other stakeholder groups who use the RIPE
> > Database to inform them of this discussion, advise them of the
> > potential consequences and invite them to join this discussion.
>
> This is not a requirement of the PDP.  Proposals are announced to
> the PDP-announce-Mailing list, and people interested in policy change
> are expected to read this.
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279