[ca-tf] last version of the Certification Proposal

Dear Filiz, dear colleagues,

  > Hi CA TF members,
  > 
  > As promised, after consultation with Ruediger and Nigel, regarding  
  > Ruediger's comments on the previous version, attached please find a  
  > new version of the Certification Proposal.
  > 
  > Main differences from the previous one are the following:
  > 
  > - This one talks about "contractual relationship status" instead of  
  > "membership status" for LIRs to be able to maintain the service they  
  > receive from the NCC.
  > 
  > - It sets a specific validity period for certificates (up to 18 months).
  > 
  > - There is an additional paragraph at the beginning now, elaborating  
  > on that this policy is only limited to LIR PA allocations (the reason  
  > for that is explained in Rationale already).
  > 
  > 
  > Please pass your objections (if any) to this version's wording until  
  > 10 October 2008, Friday, next week. Support mails will be appreciated  
  > but I will take silence as consent :).
  > 
  > After that I will proceed with the publication of it as a formal  
  > proposal, when I will have just enough but limited time before RIPE  
  > 57. Please note by that time we will have only two weeks before the  
  > meeting in Dubai. In other words, to have the proposal as a formal  
  > one as announced in RIPE 56, it is very important to stick to the  
  > deadline above, 10 October 2008. It will also be good to have it  
  > discussed for at least a week before it is presented during the meeting.
  > 
  > Kind regards,
  > 
  > Filiz Yilmaz
  > Policy Development Officer
  > RIPE NCC
please find below a modified draft according to what I really would like to see.
I guess the language of my small changes makes my point better then
previous long messages.  ("small changes" = few words, the semantic change
is bigger:-)
(Of course lots of additional words could be used about the tradeoffs...)

I certainly think that starting the policy process is more important now than
the exact language of the proposal;  some discussion should be expected 
anyway.

Best regards,
  Ruediger


Ruediger Volk

Deutsche Telekom AG -- Internet Backbone Engineering

E-Mail:  rv at NIC.DTAG.DE

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: proposal_in_template_draft-rv-diff.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40688 bytes
Desc: proposal_in_template_draft-rv-diff.pdf
Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ca-tf/attachments/20081010/2730604a/attachment.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: proposal_in_template_draft-rv.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38493 bytes
Desc: proposal_in_template_draft-rv.pdf
Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ca-tf/attachments/20081010/2730604a/attachment-0001.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: proposal_in_template_draft-rv.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26624 bytes
Desc: proposal_in_template_draft-rv.doc
Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ca-tf/attachments/20081010/2730604a/attachment.doc