[ncc-services-wg] Divergence of RIPE / RIPE NCC policy

On 20/03/2013 17:56, Nigel Titley wrote:
> Just as a matter of interest, could I refer you to the proposal text that
> Axel sent out?
> 
> "Following approximately six weeks of discussion (ending on
> 30 March 2013), the Executive Board will consider feedback from the list
> and propose options on moving forward on this matter which will be
> properly communicated."

I read Axel's email carefully before sending my reply of February 11.  He
presented a proposal to choose between three different options for
implementing RPKI for PI blocks.

This is not bottom-up community stuff.  It is presenting a foregone policy
decision to the community and soliciting input on its implementation.  My
reply was firmly outside the context of the input that the RIPE NCC was
soliciting.

The RIPE community and the RIPE PDP were sidelined 18 months ago by the NCC
because it seemed like the least inconvenient option.  If the NCC proceeds
with plans to roll out RPKI/PI in the absence of RIPE community policy, we
will then have a firmly established precedent for the RIPE NCC to ignore
the RIPE community on issues which should rightly be handled as RIPE
policy.  I believe this to be extremely harmful and that it sets a terrible
example.

We have a mechanism for dealing with RIPE policy.  It may not be perfect,
but it has full community support and we accept that it is generally a good
basis for handling policy issues.  If the process has problems such that
difficult issues like resource certification lead to stalemate, then either
the PDP needs to be re-examined or else the issues are truly too
contentious to be implemented.

Sidelining the PDP because it might produce the wrong result is not the way
to deal with this situation.  If the PDP needs to be fixed, then let us fix it.

Nick