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

Hi Leo

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 22:04, Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Denis,
>
> Our processes don't move super fast. This is partly deliberate. We
> don't want to railroad the community. It is also practical. There are
> actions to be carried out between the end of one phase and the start
> of another.
>
> The proposers have taken account of the "significant comments or
> changes [...] suggested during the Discussion Phase." They have been
> preparing a draft RIPE Document with help from the RIPE NCC.
>
> The RIPE NCC has been developing an impact analysis. They
> understandably don't start that work until there's a decision on
> whether the proposal will move forward.
>
> All of these things take some time to accomplish. That is why there is
> a small gap between the formal end of the Discussion phase and the
> start of the Review phase.
>

The delays are understandable. Maybe that should be clearly reflected
in the PDP process.

> Your objections have not been ignored. We will schedule time in Rome
> to discuss the objections you have raised.

I look forward to that (remotely).

cheers
denis

>
> Kind regards,
>
> Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs
>
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 04:00, denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Leo, Colleagues
> >
> > I am both saddened and yet not surprised by this announcement to move
> > this proposal to the review phase. 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. Now suggesting we follow a process, Jim Reid will argue I
> > am trying to turn RIPE into some "process heavy organisation". But the
> > PDP is a policy. So do we get to pick and choose which bits of which
> > policies we apply or ignore? If that is the case why not just dump all
> > policy and work to a general understanding. It might be more honest.
> >
> > Let's walk through the PDP as defined in ripe-781. Starting with '2.
> > The Process'.
> >
> > "These phases are detailed below with proposed timelines for the
> > various stages. These may differ for individual proposals, but the
> > actual timelines must be documented."
> >
> > In the opening email Angela stated that the four week Discussion Phase
> > will run until 3 October 2023.
> >
> > "At the end of each phase of the process, one of the chairs of the
> > relevant WG will summarise the state of discussion on the WG mailing
> > list."
> >
> > This has not been done.
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > I have objected to this proposal on several grounds. I have justified
> > my objections with significant supporting arguments. A number of
> > people have supported the principle of my objections. Some people who
> > initially gave the proposal a "+1" response have since withdrawn that
> > support based on my objections. Neither the proposers, nor their
> > supporters (the +1 brigade), have addressed my objections. Even worse
> > than that, the proposers still deny that this proposal changes
> > anything substantially with regard to address policy. They still claim
> > it does not allow anything to be done that cannot already be done. I
> > have adequately shown this argument to be false. Neither the proposers
> > nor their supporters have even acknowledged this fact. A number of
> > people have agreed that such a fundamental change to address policy
> > should not be introduced as a (hidden) side effect of another,
> > apparently inconsequential, change. If such a change is to be
> > introduced, which may or may not have merits of its own, it should be
> > openly discussed as a separate topic. Given that these objections are
> > highly significant, and that they have been completely ignored by the
> > proposers and supporters and not "addressed adequately", the chairs of
> > the AP-WG cannot declare an initial consensus and move this proposal
> > to the review phase.
> >
> > 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."
> >
> > This has not been done.
> >
> > "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.
> >
> > I am raising these issues today as it is the last day of the
> > discussion phase according to the diagram in Appendix A of ripe-781.
> > Even though the diagram does not agree with the text in ripe-781. I
> > have allowed the 5 weeks after the discussion phase shown in the
> > diagram, rather than the 4 weeks stated in the text.
> >
> > This proposal cannot be moved to the review phase under the current
> > circumstances, if we are actually following the PDP policy.
> >
> > 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. 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.
> > Stakeholder groups like LEAs, government regulators, private
> > investigators, abuse management organisations, security community,
> > researchers, and others (who the Database Task Force never
> > identified).
> >
> > cheers
> > denis
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 03:51, Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear WG,
> > >
> > > The Discussion Phase of policy proposal 2023-04 "Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR
> > > status for IPv4 PA assignments" has now ended. Many thanks to all for
> > > your comments.
> > >
> > > The proposal will now move forward to the Review Phase.
> > >
> > > The RIPE NCC will prepare an impact analysis and a draft RIPE Document.
> > >
> > > More details about the phases of the Policy Development Process are
> > > published here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
> > >
> > > You'll also see an announcement from the RIPE NCC soon.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/