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

> 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.

to take an analog from the way organizations such as the ietf handle this

  o etno should be encouraged to think and confer all they want

  o but this wg is made up of individual experts (and lirs?) and people
    here speak as such

randy