[address-policy-wg] the post-mortem on 2008-09

On 27 Jul 2011, at 22:17, niels=apwg at bakker.net wrote:

> There has been a proper debate.  It's lasted three years.

Well IMO, any debate lasting *that* long cannot be called "proper". A  
more honest description might be "ivory-towered" or "defective". There  
is something fundamentally wrong if we can't get a policy done in 3  
years(!) and then have what appeared to be a consensus come off the  
rails at the very last moment. We, the RIPE community, should hang our  
heads in shame. Imagine the derision we'd rightly heap on other policy- 
making bodies if they had produced this outcome. And we all know a few  
of them.

Please note I am not criticising the people who raised those last- 
minute objections at all. [Though it's a pity they didn't engage much  
earlier.] I'm actually relieved they intervened while the opportunity  
was still there. This had to be more preferable than declare a  
consensus, implement the policy and then have serious objections  
emerge. Though I admit both options are unpleasant. One's just worse  
than the other.

> Trying to sneak it in via the back door of the AGM doesn't sound  
> like a great strategy to me.

That's grossly unfair Neils. Nigel clearly asked for a documented  
decision. In the absence of viable alternatives, the NCC AGM seems the  
obvious forum for that decision. Nigel just asked that the membership  
should have a vote on whether the NCC continues doing what's in the  
activity plan or stops. He was very careful not to say what that  
decision should be. Or even what the NCC membership should vote on  
because,  strictly speaking, he hasn't proposed a resolution for May's  
AGM.

It should be patently clear RIPE cannot take a decision about address  
certification any time soon, if ever. So the NCC membership seems the  
best (or least worst) choice as a suitable forum in our service region  
that could actually take a decision on this issue, whatever that may be.

It's simply unacceptable to collectively shrug our shoulders at what  
has happened and wish the wreckage to vanish all by itself. For one  
thing, we have a duty to those in the community who have not followed  
the detail of 2008-08. They deserve an answer. So do our friends at  
the other RIRs. Uncertainty about address certification in our service  
region has an impact on them and their communities. There are also  
further global impacts. It would not surprise me if governments who  
are supportive of the RIR system and its bottom-up policy making  
processes take a rather dim view of what's happened too. There's a  
nasty question that needs resolving and soon: "how can you spend 3  
years debating an important policy, letting if implode at the last  
minute and then just walk away?". It's these sorts of risks that have  
to be mitigated. The NCC will have a key role in that risk mitigation  
effort.

So with that context in mind, what do we do now? For some definition  
of "we". I think Nigel's suggestion is not just sensible, it has to be  
the next best (or least worst) option. Feel free to make better  
suggestions...

We'll look really dysfunctional if we let address certification  
continue as our very own long-running and real-world version of  
Schrodinger's famous thought experiment.