[anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002

In message <20141109135521.GF58817 at cilantro.c4inet.net>, 
Sascha Luck <lists-ripe at c4inet.net> wrote:

>On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:11:48PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>Other than my own rather informal suggestion that contract terms and
>>expectation could be made more plain, I don't recall having seen
>>anything specific put forward here would might even vaguely be called
>>an actual "proposal".  So I'm mystified about what it is that you
>>are, I gather, opposed to.
>
>I'm opposed to this recent trend of wanting to make policy "in
>the back room". Traditionally, the forum to debate and agree
>policy proposals is the address-policy WG which also has the most
>subscribers (although participation is lower than I'd like to see
>there, too). Only in the last couple of years has there been a
>trend to attempt to make policy in the "specialist" WGs.
>
>Policy-making at RIPE needs all the democracy it can get and my
>intention is to prevent "disenfranchisement" of stakeholders who
>do not want to (or can't) be subscribed to every ML there is.

Well, I personally am totally unaware of this trend you speak of,
but I do agree that any policy that is likely to affect all of
RIPE must be debated and agreed by all of RIPE.  That is, quite
obviously, fair and reasonable.

However having said that, I'd just also like to point out that in
legislative bodies worldwide, it is not at all unusual for some
matters to be delegated to either legislative committees or
subcommittees, in the first instance, before they are forwarded
to the entire body for consideration.  Is this not the way your
own Parliment works?

This committee/subcommittee approach does not preclude consideration
of any and all matters by the full body.  The full body still gets
to have the final word on any and all matters.  But it is often
viewed as an efficient way of proceeding to have matters considered,
in the first instance, by committees composed of those members with
the greatest interest in and the greates familiarity with a certain
area before they are taken up by the full body.  Does that seem
inappropriate to you?

>This does not affect my opposition to the matter in hand...

Again, I'm trying to understand what it is that you are opposed to
with respect to ``the matter in hand''.  Can you elaborate?