From ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm Mon Sep 8 05:08:01 2014 From: ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 06:08:01 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> References: <20140731114101.2BC3D6087A@mobil.space.net> <20140825184753.GA15964@Space.Net> <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> Message-ID: <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> Hi, On 08/25/2014 10:10 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 25/08/2014 19:47, Gert Doering wrote: >> while I can understand that beaches and drinks are more attractive than >> policy work, we have a proposal here that needs a bit of caring - >> this one is in Review Phase until Friday, and has received exactly one >> comment yet (strong support). I could use a *bit* more feedback here... > tl;dr: don't support as-is, but could be convinced > Even better, remove the requirement completely as it's pointless. It seems clear that we can't reach consensus on removing it completely, so I'm hoping for your support. Let's take baby steps so we can get at least some progress? > I support the idea as it's a bugfix policy proposal, but the wording is > need to be improved. At the moment, it ties the policy to the idea of the > RIPE NCC being the routing police. Probably this isn't the intention. The wording does not refer to route6 objects, only inet6num objects. The part about "globally routeable" refers to 2000::/3 so that people don't try to advance fc00::/7 or fec0::/10 address space (for example) as "theirs." >> An allocation will only be made to a LIR if the LIR has already been >> assigned or allocated an IPv6 address block from a RIR. Our intention was to allow assignments by other LIRs or NIRs or whatever as well as RIRs. Yours, -- +358 44 9756548 / http://www.trex.fi/ Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy You say "potato", I say "closest-exit." From nick at inex.ie Mon Sep 8 17:18:20 2014 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 16:18:20 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> References: <20140731114101.2BC3D6087A@mobil.space.net> <20140825184753.GA15964@Space.Net> <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> On 08/09/2014 04:08, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > It seems clear that we can't reach consensus on removing it completely, so > I'm hoping for your support. Let's take baby steps so we can get at least > some progress? yep, agreed. > The wording does not refer to route6 objects, only inet6num objects. The > part about "globally routeable" refers to 2000::/3 so that people don't try > to advance fc00::/7 or fec0::/10 address space (for example) as "theirs." In that case it would probably be advisable to refer to IANA designated Global Unicast address space rather than "globally routable": http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space > Our intention was to allow assignments by other LIRs or NIRs or whatever as > well as RIRs. It's not clear what you mean here. Are you talking about provider independent direct assignments - which are exclusively assigned by NIRs and RIRs, or PA assignments - which are exclusively assigned by LIRs? The proposal only makes sense for direct / PI assignments, not PA assignments. Nick From leo.vegoda at icann.org Mon Sep 8 17:31:05 2014 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:31:05 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> References: <20140731114101.2BC3D6087A@mobil.space.net> <20140825184753.GA15964@Space.Net> <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> Message-ID: <05bd449d4508464882ec0cc56df6a760@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Hi, Nick wrote: > In that case it would probably be advisable to refer to IANA designated > Global Unicast address space rather than "globally routable": It's really designated by the IETF. If anyone drafts updated policy text then that is probably the correct attribution. Regards, Leo From ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm Thu Sep 11 06:59:38 2014 From: ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 07:59:38 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> References: <20140731114101.2BC3D6087A@mobil.space.net> <20140825184753.GA15964@Space.Net> <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> Message-ID: <54112C3A.1000501@ssd.axu.tm> Hello, On 09/08/2014 06:18 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> The wording does not refer to route6 objects, only inet6num objects. The >> part about "globally routeable" refers to 2000::/3 so that people >> don't try >> to advance fc00::/7 or fec0::/10 address space (for example) as "theirs." > In that case it would probably be advisable to refer to IANA designated > Global Unicast address space rather than "globally routable": > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space The definition we had written is as follows: [O]rganisations are eligible to receive an allocation from the final /8 if they have an inet6num object registered in the RIPE Database or any of the other RIR databases mirrored by the RIPE NCC. This will validate the address space on both the macro and the micro level. I think this is a more convenient definition than referring to the IANA database. Do you disagree? The above definition is in the summary of the proposal instead of the proposed policy text change. It should make it into the supporting notes of the policy. We wrote it like this, because we think that this is the way it's usually done. The policy text is more generic and the supporting notes go into the nitty gritty detail. Yours, -- Aleksi Suhonen You say "potato", I say "closest-exit." From sander at steffann.nl Thu Sep 11 10:56:13 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:56:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: <54112C3A.1000501@ssd.axu.tm> References: <20140731114101.2BC3D6087A@mobil.space.net> <20140825184753.GA15964@Space.Net> <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> <54112C3A.1000501@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <483F12AA-4868-454B-885C-08103A9B5C39@steffann.nl> Hi Aleksi, > The definition we had written is as follows: > > [O]rganisations are eligible to receive an allocation from the final /8 if they have an inet6num object registered in the RIPE Database or any of the other RIR databases mirrored by the RIPE NCC. Be careful of tying policy to implementation details. Not all RIRs use the same data model and rules for their databases. i.e. ARIN whois != ARIN IRR. Another example: if one of the RIRs at some point would become the/a registry for ULA-C then there will be inet6num objects for ULA space, which would fulfil your requirement. Cheers, Sander From nick at inex.ie Thu Sep 11 14:36:30 2014 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:36:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: <54112C3A.1000501@ssd.axu.tm> References: <20140731114101.2BC3D6087A@mobil.space.net> <20140825184753.GA15964@Space.Net> <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> <54112C3A.1000501@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <5411974E.7080009@inex.ie> On 11/09/2014 05:59, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > The definition we had written is as follows: > > [O]rganisations are eligible to receive an allocation from the final /8 if > they have an inet6num object registered in the RIPE Database or any of the > other RIR databases mirrored by the RIPE NCC. > > This will validate the address space on both the macro and the micro level. > I think this is a more convenient definition than referring to the IANA > database. Do you disagree? You still haven't made it clear what you're trying to do here. - if you're suggesting that an organisation with a PA assignment (or equivalent) of /128 from some random LIR-type organisation anywhere in the world should be eligible for a last-/8-allocation, then this is basically meaningless and you would be better off removing the rule completely. The reason for this is that the policy is intended to encourage LIRs to deploy IPv6 for the end-users and provider-associated address space is pretty meaningless for LIRs in this regard. It is not a good idea to create policy which can be satisfied by tick-box compliance. - alternatively, if it's your intention that only provider independent / allocation style address space be used for this policy, you need to state that. From my understanding of the original intention of the policy, this would be most appropriate in this situation. From the point of view of the policy development process, you need to make it clear because there's an important semantic difference here which you're glossing over. Once you've made it clear, only then will it be possible to have a meaningful discussion about the most appropriate wording for inet6num vs "Global Unicast". > The above definition is in the summary of the proposal instead of the > proposed policy text change. It should make it into the supporting notes > of the policy. We wrote it like this, because we think that this is the > way it's usually done. The policy text is more generic and the > supporting notes go into the nitty gritty detail. The policy proposal proposes to change a single line in the policy. The supporting notes are arguments to help it through the working group, but they are not part of the policy. Nick From sander at steffann.nl Mon Sep 15 19:22:53 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:22:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure Message-ID: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Hello working group, The collective of RIPE working group chairpersons has decided that each RIPE working group should have some rules regarding the re-selection of the chairs. Gert and I have come up with the following: The RIPE Address Policy Working Group should attempt to maintain two Chairpersons whenever possible. Once per year one of the chairs will offer to stand down to allow new candidates to become chair. This will be announced by sending an email to the working group mailing list at least two weeks before the start of a RIPE meeting. Anybody is allowed to volunteers for the chair position, including the chair who offered to stand down. At the next RIPE meeting those present at the working group session will determine by consensus who will take the available chair position. If no consensus can be reached in the working group session then the current chairs will stay to ensure the continued stability of the working group. Those who volunteer to chair the RIPE Address Policy Working Group should be aware of the responsibilities and work this involves. A generic description of the responsibilities of a RIPE working group chair can be found in RIPE-542 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542). Address policy working group chairs are also expected to coordinate with the RIPE NCC Registration Services department on issues and/or questions arising in the either the working group or the RIPE NCC regarding address policy. As working group chairs are usually determined by consensus during the working group session at a RIPE meeting we will also determine consensus on this procedure there. Therefore please provide your feedback before or at the next RIPE meeting: RIPE 69 in London. Sincerely, Gert & Sander From scottleibrand at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 20:37:59 2014 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:37:59 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: Who determines whether consensus on a new chair has been reached? If a vocal minority objects to replacing the current chair and blocks consensus on a new one, does that mean he could continue chairing the WG indefinitely? -Scott On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hello working group, > > The collective of RIPE working group chairpersons has decided that each > RIPE > working group should have some rules regarding the re-selection of the > chairs. Gert and I have come up with the following: > > The RIPE Address Policy Working Group should attempt to maintain two > Chairpersons whenever possible. Once per year one of the chairs will > offer to stand down to allow new candidates to become chair. This will be > announced by sending an email to the working group mailing list at least > two weeks before the start of a RIPE meeting. Anybody is allowed to > volunteers for the chair position, including the chair who offered to > stand down. At the next RIPE meeting those present at the working group > session will determine by consensus who will take the available chair > position. If no consensus can be reached in the working group session > then the current chairs will stay to ensure the continued stability of > the working group. > > Those who volunteer to chair the RIPE Address Policy Working Group should > be aware of the responsibilities and work this involves. A generic > description of the responsibilities of a RIPE working group chair can be > found in RIPE-542 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542). Address > policy > working group chairs are also expected to coordinate with the RIPE NCC > Registration Services department on issues and/or questions arising in the > either the working group or the RIPE NCC regarding address policy. > > As working group chairs are usually determined by consensus during the > working > group session at a RIPE meeting we will also determine consensus on this > procedure there. Therefore please provide your feedback before or at the > next > RIPE meeting: RIPE 69 in London. > > Sincerely, > Gert & Sander > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty at akamai.com Mon Sep 15 20:44:52 2014 From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:44:52 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <533DD5DE-6B77-46A0-B6A3-AC48272EBA97@akamai.com> If this were another region, I might agree. Solving problems we don't currently have is a distraction. I like the proposed approach. It is simple and provides opportunity for change and provides for continuity. I'm in favor of it. Best, -M< On Sep 15, 2014, at 14:38, "Scott Leibrand" > wrote: Who determines whether consensus on a new chair has been reached? If a vocal minority objects to replacing the current chair and blocks consensus on a new one, does that mean he could continue chairing the WG indefinitely? -Scott On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Sander Steffann > wrote: Hello working group, The collective of RIPE working group chairpersons has decided that each RIPE working group should have some rules regarding the re-selection of the chairs. Gert and I have come up with the following: The RIPE Address Policy Working Group should attempt to maintain two Chairpersons whenever possible. Once per year one of the chairs will offer to stand down to allow new candidates to become chair. This will be announced by sending an email to the working group mailing list at least two weeks before the start of a RIPE meeting. Anybody is allowed to volunteers for the chair position, including the chair who offered to stand down. At the next RIPE meeting those present at the working group session will determine by consensus who will take the available chair position. If no consensus can be reached in the working group session then the current chairs will stay to ensure the continued stability of the working group. Those who volunteer to chair the RIPE Address Policy Working Group should be aware of the responsibilities and work this involves. A generic description of the responsibilities of a RIPE working group chair can be found in RIPE-542 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542). Address policy working group chairs are also expected to coordinate with the RIPE NCC Registration Services department on issues and/or questions arising in the either the working group or the RIPE NCC regarding address policy. As working group chairs are usually determined by consensus during the working group session at a RIPE meeting we will also determine consensus on this procedure there. Therefore please provide your feedback before or at the next RIPE meeting: RIPE 69 in London. Sincerely, Gert & Sander -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Mon Sep 15 20:58:08 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:58:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <50E9E790-E0B3-470F-8AC3-424AE8271EF2@steffann.nl> Hi Scott, > Who determines whether consensus on a new chair has been reached? It are the working group chairs that determine consensus. If a chair is personally involved (whether it is a policy discussion or something like this) then he/she usually abstains and leaves the determining of consensus to the other chair. If someone objects to a consensus decision then this can be discussed in the WG or appealed following http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-614. > If a vocal minority objects to replacing the current chair and blocks consensus on a new one, does that mean he could continue chairing the WG indefinitely? Consensus is based on discussion. The minority would need good arguments to oppose the change. And if the worst happens there is always the appeals procedure, but I hope we'll never reach that point over who gets to do the work of being a chair :) Cheers, Sander From scottleibrand at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 20:59:36 2014 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:59:36 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <50E9E790-E0B3-470F-8AC3-424AE8271EF2@steffann.nl> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <50E9E790-E0B3-470F-8AC3-424AE8271EF2@steffann.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Scott, > > > Who determines whether consensus on a new chair has been reached? > > It are the working group chairs that determine consensus. If a chair is > personally involved (whether it is a policy discussion or something like > this) then he/she usually abstains and leaves the determining of consensus > to the other chair. If someone objects to a consensus decision then this > can be discussed in the WG or appealed following > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-614. > > > If a vocal minority objects to replacing the current chair and blocks > consensus on a new one, does that mean he could continue chairing the WG > indefinitely? > > Consensus is based on discussion. The minority would need good arguments > to oppose the change. And if the worst happens there is always the appeals > procedure, but I hope we'll never reach that point over who gets to do the > work of being a chair :) > Ok, that's good enough for me. Support. -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Mon Sep 15 21:01:43 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:01:43 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: On 15 Sep 2014, at 19:37, Scott Leibrand wrote: > Who determines whether consensus on a new chair has been reached? If a vocal minority objects to replacing the current chair and blocks consensus on a new one, does that mean he could continue chairing the WG indefinitely? I think we should apply common sense rather than try to enumerate solutions for every possible corner case. If the WG can't reach consensus -- for some loose definition of that -- kick the problem upstairs for a judgement. IMO that could best be done by the RIPE chair. Who could intervene if there's an appeal or dispute on the consensus decision. I suppose the WG Chairs Collective could also be used for that role, though they may be considered too close to the Chairs of the AP WG to take on that task. I would like to think that if a chair cannot get the support from the WG, he/she would know this would be the point to stand down and make way for a replacement. From frettled at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 21:12:01 2014 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:12:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hello working group, > Hello chairpeople :D I've read the proposal, and the responses so far. As working group chairs are usually determined by consensus during the > working > group session at a RIPE meeting we will also determine consensus on this > procedure there. Therefore please provide your feedback before or at the > next > RIPE meeting: RIPE 69 in London. > > I like the proposal's simplicity, and I see no pressing problems with it. I support it. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe at opteamax.de Mon Sep 15 21:33:58 2014 From: ripe at opteamax.de (Opteamax RIPE-Team) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:33:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <90089c21-1205-4c5f-bf5a-bf7ec80023c6@email.android.com> +1 On 15. September 2014 21:12:01 MESZ, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: >On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Sander Steffann >wrote: > >> Hello working group, >> > >Hello chairpeople :D > >I've read the proposal, and the responses so far. > >As working group chairs are usually determined by consensus during the >> working >> group session at a RIPE meeting we will also determine consensus on >this >> procedure there. Therefore please provide your feedback before or at >the >> next >> RIPE meeting: RIPE 69 in London. >> >> >I like the proposal's simplicity, and I see no pressing problems with >it. I >support it. > >-- >Jan > > >!DSPAM:637,54173a28270301047118848! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick at inex.ie Tue Sep 16 00:44:19 2014 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 23:44:19 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <54176BC3.4010202@inex.ie> On 15/09/2014 18:22, Sander Steffann wrote: > The collective of RIPE working group chairpersons has decided on what authority? Nick From stolpe at resilans.se Tue Sep 16 09:46:21 2014 From: stolpe at resilans.se (Daniel Stolpe) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:46:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hello working group, > > The collective of RIPE working group chairpersons has decided that each RIPE > working group should have some rules regarding the re-selection of the > chairs. Gert and I have come up with the following: > > The RIPE Address Policy Working Group should attempt to maintain two > Chairpersons whenever possible. Once per year one of the chairs will > offer to stand down to allow new candidates to become chair. This will be > announced by sending an email to the working group mailing list at least > two weeks before the start of a RIPE meeting. Anybody is allowed to > volunteers for the chair position, including the chair who offered to > stand down. At the next RIPE meeting those present at the working group > session will determine by consensus who will take the available chair > position. If no consensus can be reached in the working group session > then the current chairs will stay to ensure the continued stability of > the working group. > > Those who volunteer to chair the RIPE Address Policy Working Group should > be aware of the responsibilities and work this involves. A generic > description of the responsibilities of a RIPE working group chair can be > found in RIPE-542 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542). Address policy > working group chairs are also expected to coordinate with the RIPE NCC > Registration Services department on issues and/or questions arising in the > either the working group or the RIPE NCC regarding address policy. > > As working group chairs are usually determined by consensus during the working > group session at a RIPE meeting we will also determine consensus on this > procedure there. Therefore please provide your feedback before or at the next > RIPE meeting: RIPE 69 in London. > > Sincerely, > Gert & Sander Well, I think this is a good start to address the problem of not having clear rule about how and when to select new chairs. While the proposal in itself looks OK, I wonder about "each RIPE working group should have some rules regarding the re-selection of the chairs." Does that mean that each WG will have rules, but they will have their own rules? Just a thought that "what if we could decide on common rules for every WG"? Cheers, Daniel Stolpe _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe at resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm From gert at space.net Tue Sep 16 09:52:07 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:52:07 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 09:46:21AM +0200, Daniel Stolpe wrote: > Well, I think this is a good start to address the problem of not having > clear rule about how and when to select new chairs. While the proposal in > itself looks OK, I wonder about > > "each RIPE working group should have some rules regarding the re-selection > of the chairs." > > Does that mean that each WG will have rules, but they will have their own > rules? Yes. > Just a thought that "what if we could decide on common rules for every WG"? We (as the WG chair collective) tried to agree on something, and couldn't. While some parts of the duties are really similar, others are different, and the individual communities of each WG are different enough that we decided to go for similar basics, like "the WG selects their chair" and "in regular intervals, chairs get re-affirmed", and leave the small print to each WG. Like, for example, the former EIX WG actually needed to have WG chair elections since it seemed to be way cool to run for EIX WG chair (they had like 5 candidates), while IPv6 and AP used to have "one chair, and no volunteers to share the work" - so no need to specify a detailed voting procedure there if you can be happy to have a single candidate. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Tue Sep 16 10:04:05 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:04:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> Message-ID: <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> Hi all, I think there should be common rules for all WG and specific rules to each WG who needs it. Some WG could be OK with the common rules while another WG could need specific ones due to their work. Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From sander at steffann.nl Tue Sep 16 10:27:00 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:27:00 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: Hi Daniel, > I think there should be common rules for all WG and specific rules to each WG who needs it. > Some WG could be OK with the common rules while another WG could need specific ones due to their work. We tried to come up with common rules and couldn't find anything that worked for all working groups. Therefore we decided to let each working group make their own rules. Remember that there is no central authority. In the end it are the participants in the working groups that decide how they want to work together. As chairs collective we just try to coordinate and do what's best for our working groups. (I hope this also answers Nick's question) Let's see how this goes and then we can look at unifying/merging/etc those rules after we have some real experience. Cheers, Sander From gert at space.net Tue Sep 16 10:37:06 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:37:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <54176BC3.4010202@inex.ie> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <54176BC3.4010202@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20140916083706.GS14459@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:44:19PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 15/09/2014 18:22, Sander Steffann wrote: > > The collective of RIPE working group chairpersons has decided > on what authority? Ours, granted to us by the WG members. Nick, what are you upset with? This was one of the areas that lacked transparency ("how do chairs get (s)elected? when do they step down, or get re-affirmed? how does a WG get rid of a chair?"), so we as a group agreed that we *all* need to do it, not just individual WGs. In particular, we're not deciding any particular process behind your back, which is why Sander sent out the proposal how to do it in the AP WG, to have WG agreement about it. (APWG used to select WG co-chairs by finding innocent victims that did not have any idea what was expected from them, and chairs got removed by voluntarily stepping down eventually - but that was never documented anywhere, and might not be the best of all possible processes) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From koalafil at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 10:57:08 2014 From: koalafil at gmail.com (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:57:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <2CF89E03-D72F-49FC-9444-540AA8737B25@gmail.com> Hello Sander and Gert, I am very happy to see this announcement. I think this brings transparency to the RIPE community's WG Chair selection process. Thanks for taking the first steps for AP WG. I am curious about the selection methodology: How do you see using "consensus" for this selection process at the RIPE meeting session? Through show of hands, humming, silence? My thinking is that "consensus" is great for discussing ideas and via fine tuning processes around them, making them "livible with" for a community. However selecting an individual for a job is more about that person's fit for the job. Some may feel awkward about discussing/agreeing/disagreeing with someone's fitness as such in public. Can you explain your thoughts in this context and the reason for your choice of consensus over any other selection process which could be anonymous for those doing the selection? Cheers Filiz Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Sep 2014, at 19:22, Sander Steffann wrote: > > Hello working group, > > The collective of RIPE working group chairpersons has decided that each RIPE > working group should have some rules regarding the re-selection of the > chairs. Gert and I have come up with the following: > > The RIPE Address Policy Working Group should attempt to maintain two > Chairpersons whenever possible. Once per year one of the chairs will > offer to stand down to allow new candidates to become chair. This will be > announced by sending an email to the working group mailing list at least > two weeks before the start of a RIPE meeting. Anybody is allowed to > volunteers for the chair position, including the chair who offered to > stand down. At the next RIPE meeting those present at the working group > session will determine by consensus who will take the available chair > position. If no consensus can be reached in the working group session > then the current chairs will stay to ensure the continued stability of > the working group. > > Those who volunteer to chair the RIPE Address Policy Working Group should > be aware of the responsibilities and work this involves. A generic > description of the responsibilities of a RIPE working group chair can be > found in RIPE-542 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542). Address policy > working group chairs are also expected to coordinate with the RIPE NCC > Registration Services department on issues and/or questions arising in the > either the working group or the RIPE NCC regarding address policy. > > As working group chairs are usually determined by consensus during the working > group session at a RIPE meeting we will also determine consensus on this > procedure there. Therefore please provide your feedback before or at the next > RIPE meeting: RIPE 69 in London. > > Sincerely, > Gert & Sander > > From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Tue Sep 16 11:03:44 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:03:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> Hi Sander, El 16/09/2014 10:27, Sander Steffann escribi?: > Hi Daniel, > >> I think there should be common rules for all WG and specific rules to each WG who needs it. >> Some WG could be OK with the common rules while another WG could need specific ones due to their work. > > We tried to come up with common rules and couldn't find anything that worked for all working groups. Therefore we decided to let each working group make their own rules. Remember that there is no central authority. In the end it are the participants in the working groups that decide how they want to work together. As chairs collective we just try to coordinate and do what's best for our working groups. (I hope this also answers Nick's question) What I mean with common rules? P.E. For being WG Chair proposed you need some knowledge, being part of the WG for "X" time, know the processes in RIPE, you cant stand up just another one need to promote you.... Those examples can be valid for all WG since there is no specific questions about it. Then, for this WG, should be specific rules about IP Resources, policies, etc... Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From gert at space.net Tue Sep 16 11:07:38 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:07:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <2CF89E03-D72F-49FC-9444-540AA8737B25@gmail.com> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <2CF89E03-D72F-49FC-9444-540AA8737B25@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140916090738.GU14459@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:57:08AM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > Can you explain your thoughts in this context and the reason for your choice of consensus over any other selection process which could be anonymous for those doing the selection? Well, the assumption is that we're not going to have an in-rush of volunteers, so in many cases it will be "one of the existing chairs is asking for re-affirmation and the WG is happy" or "one of the existing chairs is stepping down, and the WG is fine with the single volunteer for replacement". We do not want to spend large amounts of precious WG time on voting with paper ballots, counting, etc. - which could easily take half an hour or more. So, we go for "the participants agree on a candidate, in whatever form this will be expressed (humming, show of hands, withdrawal of the other candidates, ...)", and if that turns out to be non-working, we'll have to come up with a formal tie breaking mechanism by the next meeting. (This actually was one of the reasons why the WG chair collective could not agree on a common policy. Half of us wanted something lightweight and not time consuming, while the other half wanted "something more formal"). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From frettled at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 11:11:32 2014 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:11:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <20140916090738.GU14459@Space.Net> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <2CF89E03-D72F-49FC-9444-540AA8737B25@gmail.com> <20140916090738.GU14459@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > Well, the assumption is that we're not going to have an in-rush of > volunteers, so in many cases it will be "one of the existing chairs > is asking for re-affirmation and the WG is happy" or "one of the > existing chairs is stepping down, and the WG is fine with the single > volunteer for replacement". > > We do not want to spend large amounts of precious WG time on voting > with paper ballots, counting, etc. - which could easily take half an > hour or more. > This is entirely reasonable. > > So, we go for "the participants agree on a candidate, in whatever form > this will be expressed (humming, show of hands, withdrawal of the other > candidates, ...)", and if that turns out to be non-working, we'll have > to come up with a formal tie breaking mechanism by the next meeting. > > (This actually was one of the reasons why the WG chair collective could > not agree on a common policy. Half of us wanted something lightweight > and not time consuming, while the other half wanted "something more > formal"). It's a bit puzzling, though, that there couldn't be a multi-tiered process, e.g.: 1. If there is only one candidate, and no controversy, take the model you're proposing. 2. If there are two candidates, hold an election with ballots and whatnot. 3. If there are three or more candidates, go Condorcet all the way, baby! -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Tue Sep 16 11:27:15 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:27:15 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <2CF89E03-D72F-49FC-9444-540AA8737B25@gmail.com> <20140916090738.GU14459@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20140916092715.GV14459@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:11:32AM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > It's a bit puzzling, though, that there couldn't be a multi-tiered process, > e.g.: > > 1. If there is only one candidate, and no controversy, take the model > you're proposing. > > 2. If there are two candidates, hold an election with ballots and whatnot. > > 3. If there are three or more candidates, go Condorcet all the way, baby! There could, but we've decided to start easy and see whether we need the "full complication with well-defined specifics and such" at all. This is not set in stone, but something we as a group(!) define and refine as need arises. Gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Sep 16 11:28:11 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:28:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> On 16 Sep 2014, at 10:03, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: > What I mean with common rules? P.E. For being WG Chair proposed you need some knowledge, being part of the WG for "X" time, know the processes in RIPE, you cant stand up just another one need to promote you.... > > Those examples can be valid for all WG since there is no specific questions about it. > > Then, for this WG, should be specific rules about IP Resources, policies, etc... Daniel, this sounds like a nice idea in theory. However it's just not that easy in practice. A "one size fits all" approach simply doesn't work, partly for the reason you hinted at. The requirements for a Chair of this WG are different from those from say NCC Services. Or DNS. Or... The WG Chairs Collective has struggled with this issue for a long time and couldn't find a solution. An ad-hoc panel looked at this as well. They couldn't find one either. That suggests there is no magic bullet here, but feel free to come up with one. So the upshot is each WG will decide for itself how it appoints/removes/rotates its Chairs. Just like how it decides its own charter. This is also consistent with RIPE's bottom-up, consensus-driven decision making. Each WG is or should be in charge of how it runs its business. BTW, I think it's unwise to put any barriers to becoming a WG Chair other than "having the support of the WG". Anyone who's able and willing to volunteer should not be excluded because they haven't been active the the WG for "long enough" or have a deep enough understanding of RIPE processes. YMMV. The WG will be more than capable of deciding who is the best (or least worst) choice of Chair. Trust them (ie ourselves) to do make that decision. I think it's also unwise to spend hours debating this meta-issue. This WG exists to make address policy, not to invent processes and procedures. IMO the WG should try the scheme that's been suggested. If it works, fine. We're done. If not, we revisit the issue once there's a clear idea of what (if anything) has gone wrong and how to fix or improve it. We are supposed to be engineers after all. From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 11:44:42 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:44:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: General support, but a few points which are not covered by the current text: * Can you have three chairs? * For how long can you have one chair if the other is hit by a bus? * How are new chairs bootstrapped in case both are hit by a bus? * Do chairs alternate in offering to step down? ** What if one chair is controversial and thus the other always is up for re-election? ** What if neither chair wants to step down? I tried to fix that (without reformatting to make diff'ing easier): The RIPE Address Policy Working Group should attempt to maintain two -Chairpersons whenever possible. Once per year one of the chairs will -offer to stand down to allow new candidates to become chair. This will be +Chairpersons whenever possible with two being the maximum. Once per year one of the chairs will +be open for re-election in alternating order. +In case both chairs become vacant at the same time, the RIPE NCC should appoint two temporary Chairpersons. +Open chairs and re-elections will be filled at the earliest oppurtunity. Both normal and extraordinary re-elections will be announced by sending an email to the working group mailing list at least -two weeks before the start of a RIPE meeting. Anybody is allowed to -volunteers for the chair position, including the chair who offered to -stand down. At the next RIPE meeting those present at the working group +two weeks before the start of the relevant RIPE meeting. Anybody is allowed to +volunteers for the chair position, including the Chairperson up for re-election. +At the next RIPE meeting those present at the working group session will determine by consensus who will take the available chair position. If no consensus can be reached in the working group session then the current chairs will stay to ensure the continued stability of Or, even better and graphical and whatnot: https://github.com/RichiH/RIPE/commit/5bdc479ec0eb76a3ebc84795b48596cbe50e77f6 As an aside, Concordet voting is most likely the fairest approach to all. In this case, bootstrapping would need to be defined, though. I.e. do the first two win, do they stand as pairs, or would there be two rounds. RIchard PS: Yes, this is Git and a unified diff. Even IETF has started adopting Git for their WGs. We should, too. From gert at space.net Tue Sep 16 11:56:32 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:56:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <20140916095632.GA14459@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:44:42AM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > General support, but a few points which are not covered by the current text: > > * Can you have three chairs? Yes. We had in the past, but do not need three right now. Need may arise, if the workload goes up again (but this is arguably unlikely). > * For how long can you have one chair if the other is hit by a bus? Well, "until the next meeting". > * How are new chairs bootstrapped in case both are hit by a bus? The *RIPE* chair would appoint someone. Note that we can not have the *NCC* appoint APWG chairs, as that would make the NCC take part in AP policy making, which it does not do. > * Do chairs alternate in offering to step down? That was the idea. I thought it was clear from the document, but maybe it wasn't carried over from the discussion. > ** What if one chair is controversial and thus the other always is up > for re-election? > ** What if neither chair wants to step down? This is both not an option. Chairs take turns in offering to step down, which is the whole point. > I tried to fix that (without reformatting to make diff'ing easier): You're trying to overengineer :-) We might want to add a few words about "if there are any unforeseen circumstances, the RIPE chair will find a suitable interim WG chair", and clarify the alternating step-down. Besides that, I do not think we should be too specific about things. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Sep 16 11:59:42 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:59:42 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: On 16 Sep 2014, at 10:44, Richard Hartmann wrote: > Concordet voting is most likely the fairest approach to all. Voting makes no sense in an open forum such as RIPE which has no membership and anyone can literally walk in off the street and vote.* Sorry. I'm OK with voting for members of the PC. That has no role in policy-making. RIPE works by consensus when it comes to policy matters. IMO it would be very unwise to abandon that. Voting for a WG chair would be the start of a slippery slope. Next, we'd be voting on policy proposals. Or voting on which proposals can get discussed in the WG. Pretty soon, the focus will be on process rather than policies. We'll end up turning into ICANN. Or even the ITU. * This was one of the issues the WG Chair Collective struggled with. Suppose a WG wanted to get rid of a WG Chair and he/she buses in enough "supporters" to win any vote. From nick at inex.ie Tue Sep 16 12:03:42 2014 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:03:42 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <54180AFE.7000000@inex.ie> On 16/09/2014 10:28, Jim Reid wrote: > The WG Chairs Collective has struggled with this issue for a long time > and couldn't find a solution. An ad-hoc panel looked at this as well. > They couldn't find one either. Interesting. Can you post the URL to the archives where we can read up about what happened? Nick From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 12:16:40 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:16:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <20140916095632.GA14459@Space.Net> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916095632.GA14459@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:44:42AM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: >> * Can you have three chairs? > > Yes. We had in the past, but do not need three right now. Need may > arise, if the workload goes up again (but this is arguably unlikely). Didn't know that; trivial to amend. As written the policy could be interpreted to retain three chairs if no one wants to step down, though. >> * For how long can you have one chair if the other is hit by a bus? > > Well, "until the next meeting". This is not specified in the Sander's and your text. >> * How are new chairs bootstrapped in case both are hit by a bus? > > The *RIPE* chair would appoint someone. This is not specified in the Sander's and your text. > Note that we can not have the *NCC* appoint APWG chairs, as that would > make the NCC take part in AP policy making, which it does not do. Good point; agreed. >> * Do chairs alternate in offering to step down? > > That was the idea. I thought it was clear from the document, but maybe > it wasn't carried over from the discussion. It's not specified, no. >> ** What if one chair is controversial and thus the other always is up >> for re-election? >> ** What if neither chair wants to step down? > > This is both not an option. Chairs take turns in offering to step down, > which is the whole point. Again, that's not specified. >> I tried to fix that (without reformatting to make diff'ing easier): > > You're trying to overengineer :-) > > We might want to add a few words about "if there are any unforeseen > circumstances, the RIPE chair will find a suitable interim WG chair", > and clarify the alternating step-down. Besides that, I do not think > we should be too specific about things. I don't agree; as per definition, laws, contracts, regulations and the like must offer clear guidance in case of disagreements. I'd rather have something too specific while people agree than something too unspecific when people disagree. Richard From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 12:24:52 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:24:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > * This was one of the issues the WG Chair Collective struggled with. Suppose a WG wanted to get rid of a WG Chair and he/she buses in enough "supporters" to win any vote. Is "you bussed in a lot of people" a valid argument again consensus? Or is it a sign that there's huge unrest in the community and things need to change? The point being that you can't _really_ guard against this either way if there's enough determination, and funding. Richard From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Sep 16 12:36:29 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:36:29 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <54180AFE.7000000@inex.ie> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <54180AFE.7000000@inex.ie> Message-ID: <3B5164B2-FF23-4541-AE97-84C255EAA531@rfc1035.com> On 16 Sep 2014, at 11:03, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Interesting. Can you post the URL to the archives where we can read up about what happened? The WG Chairs Collective has just begun to publish the minutes of its meetings -- long story. The fag-end of their discussion can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/cc/summaries I don't know if the ad-hoc group got around to publishing its deliberations. From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Sep 16 12:47:46 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:47:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <4F19530A-D3C4-4A9F-B744-26FAE0DDDB9D@rfc1035.com> On 16 Sep 2014, at 11:24, Richard Hartmann wrote: > Is "you bussed in a lot of people" a valid argument again consensus? No. It's a valid argument against having votes in an open forum with no membership criteria. When we use consensus, it is fairly clear how to handle things if/when impostors try to interfere in WG decision-making. When the interlopers have votes... To repeat what I said before, consensus has served us well so far. There's no reason to stop using that approach. If this later turns out to be a mistake, we can deal with that once it's clear what has gone wrong and what would be the best way to fix it. What's been proposed is "good enough" -- perhaps with a little tweaking to deal with the nits that have been found. IMO I hope this WG can avoid inventing a lot of (unnecessary) complexity and process. The case for going down that path has yet to be established. From frettled at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 12:50:41 2014 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:50:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <4F19530A-D3C4-4A9F-B744-26FAE0DDDB9D@rfc1035.com> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <4F19530A-D3C4-4A9F-B744-26FAE0DDDB9D@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > > To repeat what I said before, consensus has served us well so far. There's > no reason to stop using that approach. If this later turns out to be a > mistake, we can deal with that once it's clear what has gone wrong and what > would be the best way to fix it. What's been proposed is "good enough" -- > perhaps with a little tweaking to deal with the nits that have been found. > IMO I hope this WG can avoid inventing a lot of (unnecessary) complexity > and process. The case for going down that path has yet to be established I agree completely. I think it's an important enough step forward that we're having this change, and as I understand it anyway, it's entirely up to us as the WG to decide if we want to change this yet again, even if we want a pony. (Nevermind that deciding that we want a pony won't necessarily _get_ us a pony.) -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Tue Sep 16 13:12:53 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:12:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916095632.GA14459@Space.Net> Message-ID: <7DDA0E20-7FC9-42C9-9722-C8855347D656@steffann.nl> Hi Richard, > This is not specified in the Sander's and your text. Indeed, and that is intentional. We are a loose group of people who need some people to volunteer to coordinate things. This is not a bureaucracy, anybody can participate and I think that trying to make very formal rules about how to run such a loose group will cause more trouble than it solves. We have always worked together with as few rules as possible. Going all the way to the opposite where we make very strict rules is a huge leap. Let's take smaller steps and see how it works for us. Cheers, Sander From nick at inex.ie Tue Sep 16 13:15:09 2014 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:15:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG Chair Collective (Re: WG chair re-selection procedure) In-Reply-To: <3B5164B2-FF23-4541-AE97-84C255EAA531@rfc1035.com> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <54180AFE.7000000@inex.ie> <3B5164B2-FF23-4541-AE97-84C255EAA531@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <54181BBD.8050608@inex.ie> On 16/09/2014 11:36, Jim Reid wrote: > On 16 Sep 2014, at 11:03, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >> Interesting. Can you post the URL to the archives where we can read >> up about what happened? > > The WG Chairs Collective has just begun to publish the minutes of its > meetings -- long story. The fag-end of their discussion can be found > at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/cc/summaries > > I don't know if the ad-hoc group got around to publishing its > deliberations. The ad-hoc group - of which I was a member - fine tuned some existing proposals for handling WG Chair rotation. The problem set that we wanted to handle was: - no automatic resignation for WG chairs, which has led to some WG chairs sitting in their positions for upwards of 15 years. This is fundamentally incompatible with good governance. - no standardised procedure for selecting new WG chairs - no standardised procedure for removing new WG chairs (which has happened before on an ad-hoc basis) - not having to deal with 20 different WG chair selection procedures for the ~20 different working groups (both active and inactive). - ensuring that each working group has a selection procedure. - some other odds and ends (e.g. WGs with no chair, etc) A brief note was made of this in the ripe-67 WG Chairs minutes: -- - The task-force should look at the final documents, give it some editing as needed, and have the RIPE Chair publish it on the ripe-list with an explanation and a deadline of one month. -- The next note on this issue appeared in the ripe-68 WG chair minutes: -- - The Collective agreed to work with their respective WGs to establish a procedure for replacing WG Chairs. - The minimum requirements are that each WG should have its own procedures, that these should be written down, that this should be done by the next RIPE Meeting and executed at the end of that meeting. -- I'd like to see the ad-hoc group proposals published and the mail archives of the WG Chairs opened up, so that the RIPE community can make an informed decision about whether this is best approach for handling WG Chair rotation. It is not appropriate to expect the RIPE community to be satisfied with what you correctly refer to as fag-ends of a discussion. This is an issue which goes beyond the remit of AP-WG. It would be more appropriate to discuss it on ripe-list at ripe.net. Nick From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 14:14:03 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:14:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <7DDA0E20-7FC9-42C9-9722-C8855347D656@steffann.nl> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916095632.GA14459@Space.Net> <7DDA0E20-7FC9-42C9-9722-C8855347D656@steffann.nl> Message-ID: Hi Sander, as I told Gert on IRC, I don't think my version is overly strict, it's just clearer in a few regards. If consensus is against those changes, I won't stand in the way and as I said initially, I do support the proposal. Yet, my personal opinion on if the currently proposed text is a bit too loosely defined is unlikely to change. Richard From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 14:23:01 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:23:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG Chair Collective (Re: WG chair re-selection procedure) In-Reply-To: <54181BBD.8050608@inex.ie> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <54180AFE.7000000@inex.ie> <3B5164B2-FF23-4541-AE97-84C255EAA531@rfc1035.com> <54181BBD.8050608@inex.ie> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > - no standardised procedure for removing new WG chairs (which has happened > before on an ad-hoc basis) s/new/existing/ ? Richard From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Sep 16 14:23:28 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:23:28 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG Chair Collective (Re: WG chair re-selection procedure) In-Reply-To: <54181BBD.8050608@inex.ie> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <54180AFE.7000000@inex.ie> <3B5164B2-FF23-4541-AE97-84C255EAA531@rfc1035.com> <54181BBD.8050608@inex.ie> Message-ID: <7975C00B-7311-49A2-B70E-A9D1DB57443F@rfc1035.com> On 16 Sep 2014, at 12:15, Nick Hilliard wrote: > I'd like to see the ad-hoc group proposals published and the mail archives of the WG Chairs opened up, so that the RIPE community can make an informed decision about whether this is best approach for handling WG Chair rotation. As far as I remember, most of this discussion took place in physical meetings rather than on the WG Chairs mailing list. Notes of these meetings were taken I think but it is only recently that the Chairs were able to reach consensus on how these would be published: some wanted verbatim transcripts, others felt regular minutes would do. Although I would be happy to have these minutes and mail archives published, it may be difficult to do so retrospectively given that some of the then WG Chairs and WGs are not around any more. Untangling that could be more bother than it's worth. > It is not appropriate to expect the RIPE community to be satisfied with what you correctly refer to as fag-ends of a discussion. Maybe. However we are where we are and I am not sure there's much point raking over ancient history. High-level overview: the WG Chairs Collective could not reach consensus after flogging this issue to death for years. Everyone agreed a transparent appointment mechanism was necessary. They just couldn't agree what it was or if it should be the same for every WG. An ad-hoc group was formed to try and break that deadlock. It didn't. So each WG was asked to come up with its own process and have that ready for RIPE69. Gert and Sander have started that for this WG. And nudged me to get things under way in DNS. In my view the thing now is to look forwards rather than backwards. The outcome of those earlier discussions addresses the basic problem. There will soon be clear and transparent mechanisms for each WG to select its Chairs. I doubt it matters much how we got to that destination or why it took so long. The point is we're there. At last! From sander at steffann.nl Tue Sep 16 14:29:02 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:29:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916095632.GA14459@Space.Net> <7DDA0E20-7FC9-42C9-9722-C8855347D656@steffann.nl> Message-ID: Hi Richard, > as I told Gert on IRC, I don't think my version is overly strict, it's > just clearer in a few regards. If consensus is against those changes, > I won't stand in the way and as I said initially, I do support the > proposal. > > Yet, my personal opinion on if the currently proposed text is a bit > too loosely defined is unlikely to change. Ok, thanks for your feedback! I'll take another look at your proposed text. Thanks! Sander From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 14:31:08 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:31:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916095632.GA14459@Space.Net> <7DDA0E20-7FC9-42C9-9722-C8855347D656@steffann.nl> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Ok, thanks for your feedback! I'll take another look at your proposed text. JFTR, I am not married to the actual text; I'd just like to see the points addressed. But even without that, I generally support this proposal. Even more so if the WGs could agree to a common procedure ;) Richard From nick at inex.ie Tue Sep 16 14:30:47 2014 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:30:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG Chair Collective (Re: WG chair re-selection procedure) In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <54180AFE.7000000@inex.ie> <3B5164B2-FF23-4541-AE97-84C255EAA531@rfc1035.com> <54181BBD.8050608@inex.ie> Message-ID: <54182D77.7030301@inex.ie> On 16/09/2014 13:23, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> - no standardised procedure for removing new WG chairs (which has happened >> before on an ad-hoc basis) > > s/new/existing/ ? er, yes. Nick From frettled at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 14:44:43 2014 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:44:43 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG Chair Collective (Re: WG chair re-selection procedure) In-Reply-To: <7975C00B-7311-49A2-B70E-A9D1DB57443F@rfc1035.com> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <54180AFE.7000000@inex.ie> <3B5164B2-FF23-4541-AE97-84C255EAA531@rfc1035.com> <54181BBD.8050608@inex.ie> <7975C00B-7311-49A2-B70E-A9D1DB57443F@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > > In my view the thing now is to look forwards rather than backwards. The > outcome of those earlier discussions addresses the basic problem. There > will soon be clear and transparent mechanisms for each WG to select its > Chairs. I doubt it matters much how we got to that destination or why it > took so long. The point is we're there. At last! > Looking forward, it seems obvious to me that some work should be done to ensure a reasonable standardization of these mechanisms, so that e.g. if I were to take part in another WG, I'd instantly know how these procedures worked. It's difficult enough to be a fresh WG participant without having to expend extra time on reading and understanding different procedures. And I suppose this is your fear, that having too detailed procedures could be demotivating to WG participants. It would be less potentially demotivating with a concise, common procedure set. I'm not saying that it is demotivating, and I still think that the general idea of how to handle governance is sufficiently sound to proceed with. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ebais at a2b-internet.com Tue Sep 16 18:38:10 2014 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:38:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <7DDA0E20-7FC9-42C9-9722-C8855347D656@steffann.nl> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916095632.GA14459@Space.Net> <7DDA0E20-7FC9-42C9-9722-C8855347D656@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <04f601cfd1cc$9df7ccb0$d9e76610$@a2b-internet.com> Hi Sander & Gert, First I would like to say that I like the idea of rotating chairs once in a while (even if it is going to be an extension of the term on paper ) .. And the proposed way might be a good start to look at it. Voting for WP-Chairs might not be the easiest to have them included in the current (electronic) voting system, as only members have access as far as I know to it to vote. However voting in the room (show of hands / paper), might actually not represent the community well enough. Having said this, I am always wondering how to and if I need to include our voting block in favor of certain decisions that are up for voting ... voting might be too restrictive on both options. As Filiz stated, discussing a persons reason at the microphone, why one thinks he or she might not be the best candidate for a position ... might not the be a fun thing to do.. However .. If you can't stand the heat .. stay out of the kitchen .. A discussion on one's personal flaws or having to answer his/her motivation on stage is probably the easiest discussion you might have to do as a WG Chair .. especially if a topic is getting a heated discussion ... I think that there could be a nice role for the NCC Chair on declaring consensus about a certain candidate .. based on the discussion and overall opinion / support shown at the microphone in the room. Overall, +1 for the effort on making this transparent and putting this into the community.. And +1 on the proposal. Regards, Erik Bais From elvis at velea.eu Wed Sep 17 03:56:23 2014 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Velea) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:56:23 +1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) In-Reply-To: <20140623060243.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.161ac2a47c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20140623060243.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.161ac2a47c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <5418EA47.8080307@velea.eu> Hi Sandra, I see that the status of this proposal on the RIPE website is "Awaiting Decision from Proposer". The status has not changed since 02 July 2014 :) Do you have any updates on this policy proposal? @WG-chairs - is this proposal frozen now, waiting the result of 2014-02 or will it move to the next PDP step anytime soon? Kind regards, Elvis On 23/06/14 23:02, sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > Tore, Thanks for your feedback. See below for comments. > > From: Tore Anderson > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy > for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <53A7ECB6.60108 at fud.no> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > I like it, overall. Clearly there are a few who are interested in > engaging in inter-RIR transfers, and if we can facilitate for this > without imposing any cost or burden on those who are not interested, I > can see no reason to not do this. > > With regards to the proposals second argument against (regarding the > re-introduction of "need" if another RIR insists), I do not consider > that to be problematic at all, as it would be a burden that would be > borne in its entirety by the entity voluntarily taking part in a > transfer involving a "needy" RIR. > > I have some comments/suggested improvements though: > > 1) I concur with other posters that the use of ?LIR? should be avoided. > However, I'd also like to add that suggested replacement ?organisation? > could potentially also be problematic, as a resource holder could be a > natural person rather than an organisation. It would be preferable to > avoid getting in a situation where non-organsation resource holders > would be prevented from engaging in inter-RIR transfers even though the > resource-specific policy would allow for that. > > Therefore I would suggest using even more general language, such as > ?resource holder?/?resource holder to be? or ?entity?. > > > **** I think this is a very good point, thanks. Sandra > > 2) The proposal seeks to add the following paragraphs to ripe-606 > section 5.5: > > ?When Internet number resources are transferred to another RIR, the RIPE > NCC will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the > receiving LIR. > > When Internet number resources are transferred from another RIR, the > RIPE NCC will work with its member LIR to fulfil any requirements of the > sending RIR.? > > These additions seem completely redundant to me, as the new policy > document says pretty much the same thing in sections 2.0 and 3.0. > > (Also, ?fulfill? is incorrectly spelled.) > > *** Thanks for pointing out this redundancy issue. > *** Let me look into it with Marco and the Chairs, as to whether we > *** would add the text or were making a statement of fact. > *** Agree on spelling of fulfill. Thanks. Sandra > > 3) Also in ripe-606 section 5.5 the proposal seeks to add the following: > > ?If resources are transferred as legacy resources, the RIPE NCC will > apply the legacy policy when accepting these resources.? > > This statement seems out of place to me: > > * ripe-606 does not apply to legacy resources, a fact which is implied > by the new paragraph as well. The statement therefore voids itself. > > * Even if disregarding the above, ripe-606 only covers IPv4. Legacy > resources also include ASNs. So if the resource is to be transferred is > a legacy ASN, this transfer would be regulated by a piece of policy text > located in the non-legacy IPv4 policy....which would to me be a > completely nonsensical outcome. > > IMHO, the only sensible place to locate a statement that essentially > says "legacy resources are governed by the legacy policy" is in, you > guessed it, the legacy policy itself (ripe-605). We're in luck, because > it already does just that. :-) > > *** I am not sure we will add that statement to the policy or if it is > *** just a statement of fact: that legacy policy will apply, as you > say. > *** Let me check with Marco, as what you say makes total sense to > *** me. Sandra > > So in summary, all of the additions 2014-05 seeks to do in ripe-605 seem > redundant or out of place to me, accomplishing no actual policy change > beyond adding bloat. Am I missing something? If not, I'd much rather > prefer that ripe-605 is left alone by 2014-05. > > *** Yes the intention is not to add bloat but perhaps to re-confirm what > > *** is already there. Thanks a ton for your feedback, and of course for > *** your support for the intent. > > *** Sandra > > Tore > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 34, Issue 15 > ************************************************* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Wed Sep 17 13:27:17 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:27:17 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) In-Reply-To: <5418EA47.8080307@velea.eu> References: <20140623060243.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.161ac2a47c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <5418EA47.8080307@velea.eu> Message-ID: <20140917112717.GL14459@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:56:23AM +1000, Elvis Velea wrote: > I see that the status of this proposal on the RIPE website is "Awaiting > Decision from Proposer". The status has not changed since 02 July 2014 :) > > Do you have any updates on this policy proposal? > > @WG-chairs - is this proposal frozen now, waiting the result of 2014-02 > or will it move to the next PDP step anytime soon? New version is in impact analysis right now. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Wed Sep 17 18:11:12 2014 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:11:12 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) Message-ID: <20140917091112.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.6acc8f1a19.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:56:23 +1000 From: Elvis Velea Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Message-ID: <5418EA47.8080307 at velea.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Sandra, I see that the status of this proposal on the RIPE website is "Awaiting Decision from Proposer". The status has not changed since 02 July 2014 :) Do you have any updates on this policy proposal? @WG-chairs - is this proposal frozen now, waiting the result of 2014-02 or will it move to the next PDP step anytime soon? Kind regards, Elvis ----- Hi Elvis - RIPE NCC is conducting impact analysis at this time. Once this is complete, review phase will start. Best Sandra ------ From elvis at velea.eu Thu Sep 18 01:37:16 2014 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Velea) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:37:16 +1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) In-Reply-To: <20140917091112.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.6acc8f1a19.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20140917091112.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.6acc8f1a19.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <541A1B2C.8050802@velea.eu> Hi Gert, Sandra, thank you for your replies. cheers, elvis On 18/09/14 02:11, sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:56:23 +1000 > From: Elvis Velea > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy > for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <5418EA47.8080307 at velea.eu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Sandra, > > I see that the status of this proposal on the RIPE website is "Awaiting > Decision from Proposer". The status has not changed since 02 July 2014 > :) > > Do you have any updates on this policy proposal? > > @WG-chairs - is this proposal frozen now, waiting the result of 2014-02 > or will it move to the next PDP step anytime soon? > > Kind regards, > Elvis > ----- > Hi Elvis - > > RIPE NCC is conducting impact analysis at this time. Once this is > complete, > review phase will start. > > Best > Sandra > ------ > From randy at psg.com Thu Sep 18 03:57:01 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:57:01 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: > I think we should apply common sense rather than try to enumerate > solutions for every possible corner case. can we have that engraved in fire and placed some place very visible? randy From rogerj at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 10:02:06 2014 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:02:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hello working group, > > The collective of RIPE working group chairpersons has decided that each RIPE > working group should have some rules regarding the re-selection of the > chairs. Gert and I have come up with the following: Hello and excellent suggestion, however one question from me > stand down. At the next RIPE meeting those present at the working group > session will determine by consensus who will take the available chair > position. If no consensus can be reached in the working group session > then the current chairs will stay to ensure the continued stability of > the working group. So the mailinglist have nothing to say in who is going to be chair? Only people onsite in the room, or following it remote through any of the channels available? -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From sander at steffann.nl Fri Sep 19 10:14:33 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:14:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <9C113558-3F62-4885-8C9A-A3EE1A26CADD@steffann.nl> Hi Roger, > >> stand down. At the next RIPE meeting those present at the working group >> session will determine by consensus who will take the available chair >> position. If no consensus can be reached in the working group session >> then the current chairs will stay to ensure the continued stability of >> the working group. > > So the mailinglist have nothing to say in who is going to be chair? > Only people onsite in the room, or following it remote through any of > the channels available? We shouldn't exclude repot participants. I'll adjust the wording a bit for the next version of the text to make that clear. Thanks! Sander From mschmidt at ripe.net Fri Sep 19 10:16:03 2014 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:16:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 Review Period extended until 6 October 2014 (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2014-04, "Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8 has been extended until 6 October 2014. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to . Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From koalafil at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 11:13:10 2014 From: koalafil at gmail.com (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:13:10 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <04f601cfd1cc$9df7ccb0$d9e76610$@a2b-internet.com> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916095632.GA14459@Space.Net> <7DDA0E20-7FC9-42C9-9722-C8855347D656@steffann.nl> <04f601cfd1cc$9df7ccb0$d9e76610$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: Hello, Erik, not direct response to you, but your response triggered more thought, so responding on yours: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Sander & Gert, > > > > > As Filiz stated, discussing a persons reason at the microphone, why one > thinks he or she might not be the best candidate for a position ... might > not the be a fun thing to do.. However .. > > If you can't stand the heat .. stay out of the kitchen .. > > Actually my point was not about the candidate and the heat they may feel. It was for those who will be doing the selection. People know each other. It can get very awkward for those who are to raise their hands or not for a certain candidate while the candidate is watching the whole scene and the process openly. And this has the potential to have an impact on the outcome of course. And clearly this is of course more of an issue when the number of positions are less than the number of candidates. I do not know with how many chairs the AP WG wants to continue and how many candidates we will have on the day of the session during RIPE 69. This is not new in RIPE history by the way. RIPE PC selected members by show of hands in the room in the past. After that we turned it into anonymous electronic voting for similar concerns. But we often have more candidates than the number of available seats. I happen to think anonymous voting system helps getting more candidates stand up for a position and making it easier to choose one for everyone else too in general. It encourages new candidates to show interest in positions and facilitates participation to the selection process too, because no one find themselves to explain or to hear why or why not they voted for some colleague/friend/total stranger in any means. This is all about selecting a person. It is not to replace the consensus-building we deployed successfully when discussing proposals, ideas and concepts over the years. I think we as a community can differentiate the two very well. I see no need to over-engineer this part either. Filiz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.pels at ams-ix.net Fri Sep 19 11:31:27 2014 From: martin.pels at ams-ix.net (Martin Pels) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:31:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: <5411974E.7080009@inex.ie> References: <20140731114101.2BC3D6087A@mobil.space.net> <20140825184753.GA15964@Space.Net> <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> <54112C3A.1000501@ssd.axu.tm> <5411974E.7080009@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20140919113127.3590d567@fizzix> Hi Nick, On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:36:30 +0100 Nick Hilliard wrote: > You still haven't made it clear what you're trying to do here. > > - if you're suggesting that an organisation with a PA assignment (or > equivalent) of /128 from some random LIR-type organisation anywhere in the > world should be eligible for a last-/8-allocation, then this is basically > meaningless and you would be better off removing the rule completely. The > reason for this is that the policy is intended to encourage LIRs to deploy > IPv6 for the end-users and provider-associated address space is pretty > meaningless for LIRs in this regard. It is not a good idea to create > policy which can be satisfied by tick-box compliance. > > - alternatively, if it's your intention that only provider independent / > allocation style address space be used for this policy, you need to state > that. From my understanding of the original intention of the policy, this > would be most appropriate in this situation. > > From the point of view of the policy development process, you need to make > it clear because there's an important semantic difference here which you're > glossing over. You are correct in that having received a small IPv6 PA assigment from another LIR may not be enough for deploying IPv6 to end-customers. But I could argue that having this PA assignment actually deployed in your network is more meaningful than having requested your own PA allocation without doing anything with it (which would satisfy the policy as it is now). The aim of the original policy rule is to make sure that when an organization requests space from the last /8 they know about IPv6 and have taken a first step towards deployment by acquiring an IPv6 block. I don't think we should be concerning ourselves with where that address block comes from (PI, another RIR or somewhere else). Kind regards, Martin From nick at inex.ie Sat Sep 20 13:14:41 2014 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:14:41 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> On 16/09/2014 10:28, Jim Reid wrote: > Daniel, this sounds like a nice idea in theory. However it's just not > that easy in practice. A "one size fits all" approach simply doesn't > work, partly for the reason you hinted at. The requirements for a Chair > of this WG are different from those from say NCC Services. Or DNS. > Or... Jim, this is nonsense. The candidates will be different but there is no good reason not to have the same or a similar selection process. > The WG Chairs Collective has struggled with this issue for a long time > and couldn't find a solution. An ad-hoc panel looked at this as well. > They couldn't find one either. This is plain wrong at a variety of levels. Firstly, you're voicing an implicit assumption that the WG chairs are responsible for deciding the baseline scope of this policy. In fact, this is a matter of general RIPE community policy and the opinion of the WG Chairs matters only insofar as they are also members of the RIPE community. The place to discuss this is not the WG lists, but ripe-list and at the plenary. If the RIPE community comes to some form of consensus that this should be devolved to the WGs, only then should this happen. Otherwise, this is subject to general RIPE community policy. Secondly, despite what you have claimed multiple times during this discussion, the ad-hoc panel came up with a reasonable and consistent set of proposals. The WG chairs - not the wider RIPE Community - then rejected this because a number of them felt that: > [...] Each WG is or should be in charge of how it runs its > business. In other words, a small number of the WG chairs decided to push this down to their own working groups, without reference to the wider RIPE community and without reference to the PDP. The RIPE Community has a policy development process for deciding matters of community policy. Once again, it is being ignored because of top-down decisions which were made in private without reference to the wider RIPE community. This is not ok. Nick From gert at space.net Sat Sep 20 13:31:14 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 13:31:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20140920113114.GB14459@Space.Net> Hi, On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 12:14:41PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Firstly, you're voicing an implicit assumption that the WG chairs are > responsible for deciding the baseline scope of this policy. In fact, this > is a matter of general RIPE community policy and the opinion of the WG > Chairs matters only insofar as they are also members of the RIPE community. > > The place to discuss this is not the WG lists, but ripe-list and at the > plenary. If the RIPE community comes to some form of consensus that this > should be devolved to the WGs, only then should this happen. Otherwise, > this is subject to general RIPE community policy. Actually, I strongly disagree with you here - how a working group runs its show, whether it wants 1 or 5 WG chairs, and whether it wants voting or not is a local matter for this WG's members. Not all WGs are equal, and having "the RIPE community" decide about matters that are a local decision of each WG is effectly exactly what you despise: a top-down decision, someone else deciding for the members of that particular WG. Experience shows that the different WGs really are quite different regarding WG chair (s)election, number of available candidates, and of course, effective job description for the WG chairs in question - APWG is very different from DNS, which is very different from EIX, etc. But I'm sure you know that :-) If you're annoyed that "the small and secret" WG chairs collective has decided to give every WG the freedom to decide for themselves how they want to handle this, you could just ignore the discussions that were done before that - we always had the freedom to handle WG chair decisions the way each individual WG wanted to do it, so deciding to *not* go for a central procedure for all is actually a *non*-change. The new thing is "hey, WG chairs, please come to a formal description how your WG will do this in the future, and write it down" - and you can't claim that this is a bad thing. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Sun Sep 21 03:23:32 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 02:23:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> Message-ID: On 20 Sep 2014, at 12:14, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 16/09/2014 10:28, Jim Reid wrote: >> Daniel, this sounds like a nice idea in theory. However it's just not >> that easy in practice. A "one size fits all" approach simply doesn't >> work, partly for the reason you hinted at. The requirements for a Chair >> of this WG are different from those from say NCC Services. Or DNS. >> Or... > > Jim, this is nonsense. The candidates will be different but there is no good reason not to have the same or a similar selection process. It is not nonsense Nick and there are plenty of good reasons why "the same or a similar selection process" is not possible. One of them was in my previous mail. Another was neither the WG Chairs Collective nor the Gang of Four could come up with an over-arching mechanism that got consensus. The best that could be agreed was each WG should choose and document its own open, transparent process. There was consensus on that. If those who were most motivated to fix this issue couldn't find a one-stop solution and reach consensus on it, I fail to see how anyone else could. Feel free to prove me wrong. Yet another reason is the principle that Gert explained, namely RIPE uses bottom-up governance and policy making, not top-down. Each WG must remain free to decide for itself what works best for that WG. The members of that WG know what's best for that WG and must always be trusted to make that decision for themselves. I hope this key principle remains non-negotiable. > Firstly, you're voicing an implicit assumption that the WG chairs are responsible for deciding the baseline scope of this policy. IMO this is not a policy matter. I expect we have to agree to disagree about that Nick. WG Chairs are responsible for the running of their WGs. Their responsibilities are defined in RIPE542. AFAICT that document did not go through the PDP. Nobody's suggested it should. Yet. It also says nothing about WG Chair selection. Yet. There are plenty of other things that happen in RIPE which do not require formal policies: eg the creation and killing of WGs and Task Forces. IMO, these are a virtue of RIPE, not a "problem" that must be solved by reaching for the PDP and inventing process and procedures. YMMV. If you wish to put a proposal for a single process here Nick, you are welcome to submit it and have it work its way through the PDP. I doubt this would get consensus (see above) or even get through the PDP any time soon. Meanwhile, we have the far more unacceptable position that few, if any, WGs have an open, transparent and documented process for appointing WG Chairs. That's the immediate concern and we must focus on that more than any other aspect of this issue. Steps have been taken to address this breakage and it should get sorted out by the end of this year. Let's get that done first and see how it works out. Maybe the WGs will converge on a common mechanism, maybe they won't. If there is convergence, that should be the stage for an existential discussion about whether the converged mechanism merits a formal proposal and an invocation of the PDP. I think we don't need to do that now and it would be most unwelcome to do that or even contemplate doing that. IMO there is no reason to formulate policy in this area, let alone a policy which has to apply to every WG about how it appoints/rotates/removes its Chair(s). What really matters here is each WG decides for itself how that should be done and that the process chosen is open, transparent and properly documented. It simply doesn't matter how we've arrived at the point where we have consensus on introducing some badly overdue transparency and community accountability. The fact is is we've arrived at that point. Going back to the start and rehashing those earlier discussions all over again seems an exercise in futility because it will almost certainly end up at the same point that's already been reached. > The RIPE Community has a policy development process for deciding matters of community policy. Once again, it is being ignored because of top-down decisions which were made in private without reference to the wider RIPE community. This is utterly false. No top-down decisions have been made. A consensus has been reached and that *is* being discussed with the RIPE community, albeit on a WG-by-WG basis. This should be how things get done in RIPE. Each WG will get to decide for itself how it selects/changes its Chair(s). That is the epitome of bottom-up decision-making. That selection (of both the procedure to use and the appointment/rotation/removal of future WG Chairs) will also be done in an open, transparent manner. Those are the fundamental principles which underpin everything we do at RIPE. It would be more than unfortunate if this is abandoned. If a WG is minded to look for a one-stop solution which can then be applied to every WG, it is of course free to do that. That quest is unlikely to succeed however for the reasons I've outlined. Finally, let me just +1 what Gert just said in reply to you. From rogerj at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 10:27:46 2014 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 10:27:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 16/09/2014 10:28, Jim Reid wrote: >> [...] Each WG is or should be in charge of how it runs its >> business. > > > In other words, a small number of the WG chairs decided to push this down to > their own working groups, without reference to the wider RIPE community and > without reference to the PDP. > > The RIPE Community has a policy development process for deciding matters of > community policy. Once again, it is being ignored because of top-down > decisions which were made in private without reference to the wider RIPE > community. > > This is not ok. IF, I only say if, this is the case then this is very wrong, and the chair collective should know their place and rethink if it is right to push it down to each WG. However, a question : did this ad-hoc panel have community backing, or was it some sort of internal WG-chairs working group? I can't remember to see it anywhere on any list but I would have overlooked it. But, if this ad-hoc panel had community backing and WG-chairs collective chose to go their own way.... -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From gert at space.net Sun Sep 21 11:24:53 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:24:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20140921092453.GD14459@Space.Net> Hi, On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:27:46AM +0200, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > However, a question : did this ad-hoc panel have community backing, or > was it some sort of internal WG-chairs working group? I can't remember > to see it anywhere on any list but I would have overlooked it. If I recall it right, the panel was set up by the WG chairs collective to come up with a workable procedure because the collective in total couldn't agree on anything. There was no mandate from the community (but members of the community took part in the panel, not only WG chairs), plus, the expected outcome of the panel was a new *proposed* text, not a final decision that the WG chairs had to take as is. So, yeah, it's kind of stupid to give the task to a group dedicated to come up with something well-considered, and then decide to ignore the result - apologies for the time wasted on that. But it's by no means "ignoring the mandate of the wider RIPE community". Gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rogerj at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 11:48:15 2014 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:48:15 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <20140921092453.GD14459@Space.Net> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> <20140921092453.GD14459@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:27:46AM +0200, Roger J?rgensen wrote: >> However, a question : did this ad-hoc panel have community backing, or >> was it some sort of internal WG-chairs working group? I can't remember >> to see it anywhere on any list but I would have overlooked it. > > If I recall it right, the panel was set up by the WG chairs collective > to come up with a workable procedure because the collective in total > couldn't agree on anything. > > There was no mandate from the community (but members of the community > took part in the panel, not only WG chairs), plus, the expected outcome > of the panel was a new *proposed* text, not a final decision that the > WG chairs had to take as is. > > So, yeah, it's kind of stupid to give the task to a group dedicated to > come up with something well-considered, and then decide to ignore the > result - apologies for the time wasted on that. But it's by no means > "ignoring the mandate of the wider RIPE community". So that ad-hoc group didn't have clear community "backing" or mandate, just from the WG chairs collective. Then the WG chairs collective are free to ignore it or accept whatever they came up with. Seems like a clear cut case there really. ... that you (wg chair collective) asked someone to do a work for you (wg chair collective) and then ignore it, probably not a wise move? That still leave the issue if it's a good idea for each WG to have their own procedures of selecting chairs, or if there should be one common for all. Guess that's for the entire community and not this working group to discuss ? >From what I've seen so far it seems like all are doing more or less the same thing, a slight change of wording here and there but no major difference. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From jim at rfc1035.com Sun Sep 21 12:04:36 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:04:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> <20140921092453.GD14459@Space.Net> Message-ID: On 21 Sep 2014, at 10:48, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > That still leave the issue if it's a good idea for each WG to have > their own procedures of selecting chairs, or if there should be one > common for all. Guess that's for the entire community and not this > working group to discuss ? Sure, if you like car-herding. I think the priority MUST be to have clearly documented open and transparent procedures for appointing, removing and rotating WG chairs. That's just around the corner. It would be desperately embarrassing if this opportunity was discarded while the community has an angels on pinhead debate about how to decide the procedure for deciding the selection of WG chairs. That debate will run for a long time and almost certainly bring us back to where we are today. This seems silly. Let's fix the immediate accountability vacuum because that's the key issue. Or should be. IMO the focus should be on outcomes, not procedures. A discussion on how to decide the procedure for deciding a selection mechanism is the sort of pointless make-work that belongs in the hot air factories of ICANN and ITU. It will be a desparate shame if RIPE chooses to go down that path. From rogerj at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 12:44:11 2014 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:44:11 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> <20140921092453.GD14459@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > On 21 Sep 2014, at 10:48, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > >> That still leave the issue if it's a good idea for each WG to have >> their own procedures of selecting chairs, or if there should be one >> common for all. Guess that's for the entire community and not this >> working group to discuss ? > > Sure, if you like car-herding. > > I think the priority MUST be to have clearly documented open and transparent procedures for appointing, removing and rotating WG chairs. That's just around the corner. It would be desperately embarrassing if this opportunity was discarded while the community has an angels on pinhead debate about how to decide the procedure for deciding the selection of WG chairs. That debate will run for a long time and almost certainly bring us back to where we are today. This seems silly. Let's fix the immediate accountability vacuum because that's the key issue. Or should be. > > IMO the focus should be on outcomes, not procedures. A discussion on how to decide the procedure for deciding a selection mechanism is the sort of pointless make-work that belongs in the hot air factories of ICANN and ITU. It will be a desparate shame if RIPE chooses to go down that path. Guess I should have said something about that in my last email. The current work with getting some procedures in place should not stop waiting for some other unknown discussion. Neither my above question or Nick's concern should influence that work ongoing in this working group. Right now I'm just waiting for an update proposal that address my concern about people not being on site, and maybe some of the other concern raised :) -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From gert at space.net Sun Sep 21 13:33:03 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:33:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> <20140921092453.GD14459@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20140921113303.GF14459@Space.Net> Hi, On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:48:15AM +0200, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > That still leave the issue if it's a good idea for each WG to have > their own procedures of selecting chairs, or if there should be one > common for all. Guess that's for the entire community and not this > working group to discuss ? Given the history of this, I'd really like to postpone *that* question until we have some tangible results of what all the WGs individually agreed to. If it turns out that the effective differences are just wording details, we can go for a round of word-smithing these variants into one generic version - and if it turns out that people really want fundamentally different policies (like "fixed upper limit to the number of terms a given chair can service" vs. "as long as the WG is happy with him"), we'll see - maybe other WGs want to learn and adopt, maybe we just accept the fact that the WGs and the WGs' constituencys are just different. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stolpe at resilans.se Mon Sep 22 11:17:36 2014 From: stolpe at resilans.se (Daniel Stolpe) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:17:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <20140921113303.GF14459@Space.Net> References: <20140916075207.GR14459@Space.Net> <5417EEF5.6010107@tvt-datos.es> <5417FCF0.20701@tvt-datos.es> <8FD6BA9C-F864-48D8-8AC8-981315B7585F@rfc1035.com> <541D61A1.3060505@inex.ie> <20140921092453.GD14459@Space.Net> <20140921113303.GF14459@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:48:15AM +0200, Roger J?rgensen wrote: >> That still leave the issue if it's a good idea for each WG to have >> their own procedures of selecting chairs, or if there should be one >> common for all. Guess that's for the entire community and not this >> working group to discuss ? > > Given the history of this, I'd really like to postpone *that* question > until we have some tangible results of what all the WGs individually > agreed to. If it turns out that the effective differences are just > wording details, we can go for a round of word-smithing these variants > into one generic version - and if it turns out that people really want > fundamentally different policies (like "fixed upper limit to the number > of terms a given chair can service" vs. "as long as the WG is happy with > him"), we'll see - maybe other WGs want to learn and adopt, maybe we > just accept the fact that the WGs and the WGs' constituencys are just > different. I agree. Let evry WG solve the immediate problem (lack of procedure and transparency) for now and then we can have the other discussion in due time. Cheers, Daniel _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe at resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm From furry13 at gmail.com Tue Sep 23 17:41:04 2014 From: furry13 at gmail.com (Jen Linkova) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:41:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hello working group, > > The collective of RIPE working group chairpersons has decided that each RIPE > working group should have some rules regarding the re-selection of the > chairs. Gert and I have come up with the following: > > The RIPE Address Policy Working Group should attempt to maintain two > Chairpersons whenever possible. Once per year one of the chairs will > offer to stand down to allow new candidates to become chair. Question: doesn't 1 year cycle look too short? It's basically just two RIPE meetings and I believe that a new chair might need some time (at least one meeting) to get up to speed. As experienced WG chairs, could you tell us how the chair learning curve looks like? Besides that - LGTM. -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Sep 23 17:57:33 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:57:33 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <25DD8854-EDDC-4DF0-A918-B3056CF10FF2@rfc1035.com> On 23 Sep 2014, at 16:41, Jen Linkova wrote: > Question: doesn't 1 year cycle look too short? IIUC, the intention is one chair position would be up for grabs once a year. ie Sander (say) or someone else would get appointed for N years this year, assuming this proposal is accepted by the WG. Next year Gert or someone else would get appointed for N years. N would/should be the number of WG Chairs/Co-chairs. > As experienced WG chairs, could you tell us how the chair learning > curve looks like? Depends on who's doing the learning I suppose. :-) From gert at space.net Tue Sep 23 23:18:55 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:18:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <20140923211855.GI14459@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:41:04PM +0200, Jen Linkova wrote: > > The RIPE Address Policy Working Group should attempt to maintain two > > Chairpersons whenever possible. Once per year one of the chairs will > > offer to stand down to allow new candidates to become chair. > > Question: doesn't 1 year cycle look too short? It's basically just two > RIPE meetings and I believe that a new chair might need some time (at > least one meeting) to get up to speed. Well, this is what Richard already commented on - it was clear to us that the chairs would be taking turns on this, so with 2 chairs, you'd serve for a 2-year-term, and so on. The next revision will be clearer here. Also, the assumption is that if a chair is happy with his job, and the WG is happy as well, this primarily serves to check that the WG is still fine, and it's not intended to forcibly change WG chair every time, just "if the situation makes it happen". > As experienced WG chairs, could you tell us how the chair learning > curve looks like? It really depends on the WG, I'd say. APWG is more policy-proposal oriented, that is, much more activity on the mailing lists and more coordination with the NCC than more "meeting oriented" WGs where most activity happens at the RIPE meeting... but neither is truly hard for someone who likes to organize stuff and work with people. Gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nick at inex.ie Tue Sep 23 23:22:25 2014 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:22:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure In-Reply-To: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> References: <36064F33-CE66-4407-8B0E-1B356D642520@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <5421E491.2000304@inex.ie> Sander, On 15/09/2014 18:22, Sander Steffann wrote: > The RIPE Address Policy Working Group should attempt to maintain two > Chairpersons whenever possible. Once per year one of the chairs will > offer to stand down to allow new candidates to become chair. You probably mean "one of the chairs will stand down...". Offering to stand down is very polite but probably not what you intend in this situation. Requiring a chair rotation event every very year is an unusual way to handle this. Most non-profit good governance guidelines suggest a term limit per candidate, normally 2-4 years, rather than handling this by mandating a ritual resignation every fixed period. It's more consistent and less easy to game this way. > This will be > announced by sending an email to the working group mailing list at least > two weeks before the start of a RIPE meeting. Anybody is allowed to > volunteers for the chair position, typo: "Anybody is allowed to volunteer", not "volunteers". > including the chair who offered to > stand down. At the next RIPE meeting those present at the working group > session will determine by consensus who will take the available chair > position. If no consensus can be reached in the working group session > then the current chairs will stay to ensure the continued stability of > the working group. Couple of comments here: - this is not a good idea because it opens up a hole in the wg chair selection process so that a sitting chair can remain sitting as long as they can engineer a small but noisy contingent of people prepared to create a ruckus every time there is an resignation/reselection process. Please bear in mind that defaulting to sitting chairs would normally be considered incompatible with good governance principles, and as a separate issue, there is now direct financial value in being able to swing APWG policy discussions one way or another by e.g. being a wg-chair. - this process disenfranchises people who are unable to attend meetings. This is a very difficult issue to address. At the very least it would help if the process included something that the candidate's name (or candidates' names) should be announced on the mailing list a short period before the reselection process. This will give remote participants more visibility and the ability to partake in the process. - there is no procedure for removing a WG chair. This may be especially relevant if the default process allows the chairperson to sit indefinitely in the case of dispute, rather than resign. Nick From gert at space.net Wed Sep 24 18:19:16 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:19:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Consensus reached on "2014-02 (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)" In-Reply-To: <20140825184431.GA15234@Space.Net> References: <20140710100351.9B9FF60276@mobil.space.net> <20140825184431.GA15234@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20140924161916.GA27820@Space.Net> Dear Address Policy WG, On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 08:44:31PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > The review phase for 2014-02 has ended. > > Given the amount of support, the WG chairs have decided that we have > reached consensus. We think that all points brought up by the opposers > have been sufficiently discussed - this might not be sufficient to > convince the opposers to change their mind, but given sufficient support > otherwise, it's good enough to move forward. > > This is what we'll do now -> move 2014-02 to Last Call. Marco will send > the formal announcement for that tomorrow or Wednesday. No comments were received in "last call" phase. This is the only phase in the PDP where this is considered "silent consent", so we're good, and the chairs hereby declare consensus on 2014-02. If you disagree with this decision please contact the working group chairs (preferably on this public mailing list and otherwise by sending mail to apwg-chairs at ripe.net). Should that not resolve the problem then you can appeal to the WG chairs collective (as per section 4 of ripe-614). Marco will send the formal announcement from the NCC soon. regards, Gert Doering and Sander Steffann -- APWG chairs -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mschmidt at ripe.net Tue Sep 30 13:54:58 2014 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:54:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 Proposal Accepted (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached and the proposal for a change to ripe-622, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-623 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-623 The RIPE NCC has already begun preparations to implement this policy proposal. We will create new internal and external procedures, and related tools and documentation, to ensure the correct processing of IPv4 PI transfers. We estimate it will take about two months to fully implement the policy proposal. Once the implementation is complete, we will make another announcement and the transfer of IPv4 PI assignments will then be possible. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From ebais at a2b-internet.com Tue Sep 30 17:31:20 2014 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:31:20 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 Proposal Accepted (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) Message-ID: <019401cfdcc3$99cbafb0$cd630f10$@a2b-internet.com> Hi Marco, Thank you for assistance and processing. Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Marco Schmidt Verzonden: dinsdag 30 september 2014 13:55 Aan: policy-announce at ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Onderwerp: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 Proposal Accepted (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached and the proposal for a change to ripe-622, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-623 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-623 The RIPE NCC has already begun preparations to implement this policy proposal. We will create new internal and external procedures, and related tools and documentation, to ensure the correct processing of IPv4 PI transfers. We estimate it will take about two months to fully implement the policy proposal. Once the implementation is complete, we will make another announcement and the transfer of IPv4 PI assignments will then be possible. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC