[ncc-services-wg] 2023-03 status problem

Hi Erik

I would disagree with you here as a matter of principle.

On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 14:47, Erik Bais <erik at bais.name> wrote:
>
> Hi Sander,
>
> I will repeat myself on what I've stated earlier on this ..
>
> This shouldn't be a PDP / policy topic, but an operation implementation on the portal.  Which doesn't require a policy change as far as I'm aware of.
> The requested change to the LIR portal, is similar ( imho ) to adding 2FA .. it is the decision of the NCC to offer the option, it is the decision of the LIR to actually use it or not

I understand that you are focussed on the current issue. But this has
wider implications. What you are suggesting here is that the RIPE NCC
can offer a service so that individual LIRs can choose to ignore RIPE
policy. That is a very dangerous precedent. It completely undermines
the whole community based PDP. It allows an LIR to decide to use a
service the NCC has decided to offer that prevents a resource from
being transferred. The Transfer policy says that resource CAN be
transferred. So the combined decisions of the NCC and the LIR violates
the Transfer policy. I also don't think the EB has the right to allow
the NCC to offer such a service in the long term. As a short term,
emergency arrangement, that is fine. But the EB should not have the
right to override RIPE policy.

The only way to do this is to put an opt out clause in the Transfer
policy. Then invoking the opt out, and effectively locking the
transfer of a specific resource, complies with the policy and doesn't
violate it.

As for people involved in any conflict opposing the policy change,
keep in mind that consensus is not a vote. Numbers don't count. To
oppose the change people must present sound objections. "I want to
force someone to transfer resources to me against their free will" is
not an acceptable objection and can be discounted by the WG chairs
when determining consensus.

cheers
denis

> With the risk of being locked out of the LIR portal, if they don't manage their 2FA properly ..
>
> This shouldn't be a policy and yes I've heard what Athena said .. I disagree with her on this topic ..
>
> This should be decided by the EB and implemented by the NCC.
>
> If the WG didn't receive any feedback during the discussion phase, this means that policy making is still decided by around 20 ish people in the community of 22.000 ...
> And nobody was interested enough to be bothered .. and the intended targets of the portal change are probably hiding in shelters or walking through the fields ...
>
> If this was decided that it is a PDP topic, the chance is that the opposition of the conflict, could also provide opposition on the PDP / proposal here..
> And that is why in this particular situation, PDP isn't the solution here.
>
> I'm not against the proposal, I don't think this should be put through PDP for said reasons.
>
> Regards
> Erik Bais
>
> On 15/05/2023, 12:10, "ncc-services-wg on behalf of Sander Steffann" <ncc-services-wg-bounces at ripe.net <mailto:ncc-services-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of sander at steffann.nl <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>> wrote:
>
>
> Hello working group,
>
>
> As the authors were in a bit of a difficult position. The chairs won't move this policy proposal forward as there was no feedback during the discussion phase.
>
>
> We were under the impression that the chairs had extended the deadline of the phase as we did talk about that, but it didn’t actually happen. When I sent my reminder the discussion phase was therefore already over, so all the support and feedback we got then Doesn’t Count™. They have indicated that they will only reopen the discussion phase if they know that there actually will be engagement for this to be meaningful.
>
>
> So, can the people who are interested in this proposal please pinky swear that they will contribute if it does get another discussion phase? ;) You may have to repeat your feedback in the proper phase of the PDP to be counted. This approach is less pragmatic than I would have chose when I was a chair, but this is not my working group :) And the chairs are right that the reason for this being a policy proposal is that the NCC (legal) team wants formal community support, so I can see why they are following the process to the letter. So let’s do this formally right.
>
>
> PS: Denis, thank you for your contribution! We’re going to ask the RIPE NCC to comment on the interaction between the policies, and whether a separate policy like this one (with maybe a cleanup of the text in Address Policy) is preferred to integrating this in the transfer policy or not. Considering that the RIPE NCC gave us a hard deadline to get this policy in place, I’m hesitant to restart the whole process this late.
>
>
> Cheers!
> Sander
>
>
> ---
> for every complex problem, there’s a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg>
>
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg