Re: [address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01

[Hank Nussbacher hank@localhost]

At 12:37 PM 04-12-08 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:21:53PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > This was discussed many times at RIPE meetings.  Not at just one, but
> > > several.  The final decision to put this into the charging scheme was 
> made
> > > at the General Meeting in Dubai, but it was talked about at a couple 
> of others.
> >
> > excuse?  i thought decisions are made on list, not at meetings.
>
> This was one of the core problems of 2007-01 - the APWG can not decide
> on the charging scheme.  We can discuss things (which we did, here and
> in the meetings), but in the end, the charging scheme is decided by the
> RIPE members AGM - and it's one of the few things where we actually
> decide by *vote* in RIPE land.
I reviewed the draft agenda:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00671.html
but I have as yet to see any protocol from the address-policy-wg or from 
the AGM.
I did find this:
http://www.ripe.net/news/gm-october-2008.html
Interesting that 52 attendees out of 6000 RIPE members are able to make 
such a change.
> Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation
> contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme.  It was sent
> out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other
> LIRs if you can't attend yourself.
I am looking into why neither il.isoc and il.iucc did not receive the 
announcement.
> The majority of the LIRs that attended the meeting (or sent proxy votes)
> voted for the acceptance of the new charging scheme.
I wouldn't call 52 out of 6000 LIRs a substantial majority.

-Hank