[anti-abuse-wg] On +1s and Policy Awareness AND Astro... something...

Hi Ronald,

> Given what you've just said, I don't think that it would be accurate
> to say that I am an uneuqivocal supporter of the present -process-
> for adopting RIPE policy proposals.  In fact, quite the contrary.
> My hope would be that if working group `X' endorses some policy which
> could potentially have far ranging implications for the whole membership
> then -all- of the parties affected should have some voice in the policy
> adoption process.  And if that is not currently how things work, then
> it is, in my estimation, sub-optimal.

There are several moments in the process where the world outside the working group is notified. There is a dedicated mailing list for that: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/policy-announce/.

And although the RIPE NCC doesn't have any special status in policy development, they do provide the working group with an impact analysis at the beginning of the review phase of the PDP. Any potential problems can then be addressed in the working group. So instead of the working group sending a recommendation to the NCC, we do it the other way around. I personally strongly prefer this model because it bases consensus on the arguments from the wider community.

Cheers,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190409/c5f2d8bc/attachment.sig>