[ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources Moved to Last Call

Hi Sander,

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:27:06AM +0300, Sander Steffann wrote:
>
>The policy (RIPE-452) says: "Notice that the LIR is responsible for
>liaising with the resource holder to keep registration records
>up-to-date". So the LIR does have a responsibility.

I know, what I meant was "responsibility to police behaviour of the
resource holder" Sorry for not being clearer.

>chair declares consensus when the working group is not unanimously
>supporting a policy proposal then that basis for that decision is
>carefully evaluated. And there is always the option to appeal a
>decision made by a working group chair. The chairs are volunteers
>working for their working group community after all.

Sure, but this proposal fundamentally changes the relationship 
between a sponsoring LIR and a resource holder in the guise of 
"just adding another field to the inet[6]num object". I feel that 
such change deserves a better argumentation and defence than just 
some hand-wavy "oh, BUT MORE TRANSPARENCY!!1!" ideological rhetoric.
I find it interesting how, with some proposals, every hair is split
three ways, every minor wording change endlessly debated and with 
others any objection is swept off the table because "doesn't matter,
it's more transparent".

A couple things that would make the PDP more palatable:

- would it be too much of an extra burden on the WG-chairs to 
summarise, briefly, how they arrived at the decision that consensus
has been achieved/not achieved? (much like a judge would substantiate
how they arrived at a given verdict but maybe not quite so verbose)

- stop the +1 BS. Every voice in support *or* against a proposal to, at
least, give a brief reasoning why. I consider it disrespectful if one
spends much time composing and arguing an objection if it can be
overridden by "+1". It's changing the way Internet resources are being
managed, not godsdamn Facebook.

rgds,
Sascha Luck