[anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:10:12PM +0100, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> On 11/10/2017 15:06, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> > For the avoidance of any doubt, the WG Co-Chairs agree that this
> > proposal will move forward to Review Phase and there will be a new
> > version of the proposal and, subsequent to that, the NCC will work on
> > their Impact Analysis.
> 
> Does this constitute a declaration of consensus in support of this
> proposal by the WG Chairs?

After the discussion phase, the PDP does not require consensus.  It only
requires the desire to go ahead by the proposer (and agreement by the 
WG chairs).

    https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642
  
    2.2 Discussion phase
    ..
    At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement
    of the WG chair, decides whether the proposal will move to the
    next phase (Review Phase) or if it should be withdrawn from the
    RIPE PDP, depending on the feedback received


We've done this for particular contentious proposals in APWG to see 
how the impact analysis would look like, and to be able to do a more
qualified discussion.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
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/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20171011/8d8cbafb/attachment.sig>