[anti-abuse-wg] Unanimity

Hi,

On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 11:20:51PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Just a brief point.  I previously noted here that RIPE's rules requiring
> unanimity or near unanimity in order to declare "consensus" with respect
> to any given proposal has recently been recognized, by some EU politicians
> at least, as being a material impediment to forward movement on various
> issues.

RIPE does not require unanimity to declare consensus.

What *is* required is significant support and that all objections raised
have been sufficiently addressed.  If and when that is reached is judged
by the WG chairs, and sometimes this is a very tough job (if there have
been lengthy and heated discussions on some side aspects, for example).

For RIPE's address policy WG, I used to point at RFC7282, which describes
the goals for "IETF consensus" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282)

Gert Doering
        -- somewhat involved in RIPE policy things
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20220620/45a55d74/attachment.sig>