Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

[Sander Steffann sander@localhost]

Hi Mark,

> [...] people talk about RIPE policy development in many places; not  
> just on the RIPE address policy group mailing list. [...]
This part scares me. The RIPE policy development process has to be as  
open and transparent as possible. When groups of stakeholders discuss  
RIPE policy development outside the 'official' channel (this mailing  
list) the process gets a lot less transparent...
This is why it is so difficult for us as working group chairs to use  
statements like those from ETNO in the policy development process. We  
can't see how the statement was created and what the reasons and  
arguments were. I understand why ETNO members work together to think  
about such a complex subject as 2007-08, but to be able to participate  
in RIPE policy development those members will have to discuss the  
policy here on this mailing list where everyone can follow that  
discussion, and not only inside ETNO.
I think the major problem in this case was calling it a 'statement' or  
'position'. Such a name does not (seem to) give much room for  
discussion. If ETNO had published a list of concerns about the  
proposal and those concerns were discussed on this list there would be  
no problem.
Michael said in another message:
> Have you asked ETNO to provide you the email addresses for all ETNO  
> representatives in order to invite them to join in?
They are discussing RIPE policy, so they (should) know what RIPE is  
and how RIPE policies are developed. If they don't, maybe ETNO can  
explain it to them and point them to this mailing list. If they are  
interested in RIPE policy development they should join in. I don't  
think it's a good idea to spam all ETNO representatives though :)
Thanks,
Sander Steffann