At 12:37 PM 04-12-08 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:21:53PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
This was discussed many times at RIPE meetings. Not at just one, but several. The final decision to put this into the charging scheme was made at the General Meeting in Dubai, but it was talked about at a couple of others.
excuse? i thought decisions are made on list, not at meetings.
This was one of the core problems of 2007-01 - the APWG can not decide on the charging scheme. We can discuss things (which we did, here and in the meetings), but in the end, the charging scheme is decided by the RIPE members AGM - and it's one of the few things where we actually decide by *vote* in RIPE land.
I reviewed the draft agenda: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00671.... but I have as yet to see any protocol from the address-policy-wg or from the AGM. I did find this: http://www.ripe.net/news/gm-october-2008.html Interesting that 52 attendees out of 6000 RIPE members are able to make such a change.
Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme. It was sent out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other LIRs if you can't attend yourself.
I am looking into why neither il.isoc and il.iucc did not receive the announcement.
The majority of the LIRs that attended the meeting (or sent proxy votes) voted for the acceptance of the new charging scheme.
I wouldn't call 52 out of 6000 LIRs a substantial majority. -Hank