[address-policy-wg] the post-mortem on 2008-09
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] the post-mortem on 2008-09
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] the post-mortem on 2008-09
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Thu Jul 28 10:57:27 CEST 2011
On 28 Jul 2011, at 01:43, Sascha Luck wrote: > Why not, then, abandon the inconvenient PDP at all and make any and > all decisions via a vote at AGM? > Clearly, if any discussions that don't produce the desirable outcome > are > simply taken to a different forum, the PDP is little more than a > farce and a waste of time? You're jumping to very wrong conclusions and seem to have ignored what's been said. The NCC has been spending money and resources on address certification for a few years now. This has been done at the request of RIPE who asked for a prototype. So development has been under way in parallel with getting 2008-08 through the PDP. The membership have approved the production of this prototype because for a few years it's been in the activity plan that gets approved at each AGM. We're now in a situation where the PDP's been followed and 2008-08 is dead. There is no policy on address certification. However the NCC has a mandate from the membership through the activity plan to continue with the prototype and its infrastructure. We're in a paradox where the community has killed a policy on address certification while simultaneously authorising the NCC to develop such a system. [Has anybody seen Schrodinger's cat wandering around? It must in be here somewhere. :-)] There now needs to be a vote by the NCC membership to take a decision which will normalise that situation. And unlike RIPE's PDP, the AGM shouldn't take 3 years to decide.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] the post-mortem on 2008-09
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] the post-mortem on 2008-09
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]