Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Thu May 8 18:46:13 CEST 2014
On 8 May 2014, at 17:15, "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie> wrote: > As I read it, Leo's point is that, since the unfortunate phrase, > "Individual proposals may choose ..." has to be corrected, we may > as well choose the appropriate correction. This text is unchanged from RIPE500 and nobody seemed to notice or care about that. Until now. Presumably that wording was OK when RIPE500 was developed and discussed at great length. Does it *really* need fixing? And fixing right now? Please remember that the object of the changes to RIPE500 are to fix the brokenness around the WGCC declaration of consensus: a tweak to Section 2.4 and streamlining of the Appeals Process in Section 4. Everything else -- the earlier stages of the PDP -- remains unchanged. It took forever to get that revised text put together. IMO now is not the time to re-open that. This will just create further delays and probably mean another year of persevering with the current PDP which is failing us. It would be a great pity if we delay adoption of the revised PDP because of a perceived need to change even more text that so far has not needed attention. I hope everyone can agree to first fix the immediate problem: unblocking the major procedural bottleneck in the sclerotic PDP. If further wordsmithing of this document is needed, can we *please* postpone that to RIPE500v3 and get RIPE500v2 out the door now? I think we should agree the revised document as-is or else reject it completely. If further changes are needed, I hope that discussion of that can be deferred for the next version. My rathole detector alarms are ringing. Loudly.