This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ripe-list@ripe.net/
[ripe-list] a proposal to change the PDP
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-list] a proposal to change the PDP
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Mon Feb 8 11:47:10 CET 2021
Hi Gert, Yes, but not *all those that participated in the discussion and opposed to the proposal* did the same. So, it is not an accusation, it is just *facts*. Again, not take this as "because this specific appeal": This proposal was written *before* the appeal, just looking in to the appeal section of the RIPE-710. That must be very clear. What I'm saying is that the actual PDP doesn't enforce all the chairs having participated (or even worst opposed) to the proposal, to recuse themselves. It also doesn't allow the authors of the policy proposal to recuse some of the chairs, which clearly it is a situation that can play against them. You don't know the "personal or business" motivations that a cochair can have against a proposal or authors. It is not rational to allow them to participate. *The same in the other way around*. It is not rational that if my best friend is going to participate in the appeal is allowed to participate. The actual wording "allows" them (both sides) to recuse themselves, but not enforce that (if they don't disclose their personal or business motivations may be nobody knows or only the proposal authors know). Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 8/2/21 11:33, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering" <ripe-list-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de gert at space.net> escribió: Hi, On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 09:28:31AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > [Jordi] It has not been the case in the first appeal we had. Chairs that > participated in the discussion, so voiced their opinion against the > proposal discussion (and of course I agree they should do it), haven't > recused themselves. Now this is an interesting accusation. From what *I* recall, quite a number of WG chairs (me among them) recused themselves because of (real or perceived) neutrality issues. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-list] a proposal to change the PDP
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]