2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)
Dear WG, The Discussion Phase of policy proposal 2023-04 "Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments" has now ended. Many thanks to all for your comments. The proposal will now move forward to the Review Phase. The RIPE NCC will prepare an impact analysis and a draft RIPE Document. More details about the phases of the Policy Development Process are published here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 You'll also see an announcement from the RIPE NCC soon. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs
Hi Leo, Colleagues I am both saddened and yet not surprised by this announcement to move this proposal to the review phase. It doesn't seem to matter what anyone says, I suspect this proposal will be approved. You included a link to the Policy Development Process (ripe-781). Pity you have not followed it. Now suggesting we follow a process, Jim Reid will argue I am trying to turn RIPE into some "process heavy organisation". But the PDP is a policy. So do we get to pick and choose which bits of which policies we apply or ignore? If that is the case why not just dump all policy and work to a general understanding. It might be more honest. Let's walk through the PDP as defined in ripe-781. Starting with '2. The Process'. "These phases are detailed below with proposed timelines for the various stages. These may differ for individual proposals, but the actual timelines must be documented." In the opening email Angela stated that the four week Discussion Phase will run until 3 October 2023. "At the end of each phase of the process, one of the chairs of the relevant WG will summarise the state of discussion on the WG mailing list." This has not been done. "In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments and then addressed adequately by the proposer or by any supporter of the proposal." I have objected to this proposal on several grounds. I have justified my objections with significant supporting arguments. A number of people have supported the principle of my objections. Some people who initially gave the proposal a "+1" response have since withdrawn that support based on my objections. Neither the proposers, nor their supporters (the +1 brigade), have addressed my objections. Even worse than that, the proposers still deny that this proposal changes anything substantially with regard to address policy. They still claim it does not allow anything to be done that cannot already be done. I have adequately shown this argument to be false. Neither the proposers nor their supporters have even acknowledged this fact. A number of people have agreed that such a fundamental change to address policy should not be introduced as a (hidden) side effect of another, apparently inconsequential, change. If such a change is to be introduced, which may or may not have merits of its own, it should be openly discussed as a separate topic. Given that these objections are highly significant, and that they have been completely ignored by the proposers and supporters and not "addressed adequately", the chairs of the AP-WG cannot declare an initial consensus and move this proposal to the review phase. In '2.2 Discussion Phase' it says: "If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, they need to produce a draft RIPE Document which should be published within four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase, before the proposal can be moved to the Review Phase." This has not been done. "The RIPE NCC will need to publish an impact analysis for the proposal 'before' it can be moved to the Review Phase." This has not been done. I am raising these issues today as it is the last day of the discussion phase according to the diagram in Appendix A of ripe-781. Even though the diagram does not agree with the text in ripe-781. I have allowed the 5 weeks after the discussion phase shown in the diagram, rather than the 4 weeks stated in the text. This proposal cannot be moved to the review phase under the current circumstances, if we are actually following the PDP policy. Let me summarise my objections. The proposer claims this is an inconsequential change to address policy that does not permit anything to be done that cannot already be done. That has been proven to be a false claim. This is a major change to address policy that will undermine the whole concept of the public registry that we have understood for the last 30 years. Regardless of the merits of such a major change, we cannot allow such a change based on a few "+1" comments from a handful of the small group of people who dominate and control all policy decisions in this region. AFAIK neither the proposer, nor the RIPE NCC, nor the proposal supporters have made any attempt to reach out to other stakeholder groups who use the RIPE Database to inform them of this discussion, advise them of the potential consequences and invite them to join this discussion. Stakeholder groups like LEAs, government regulators, private investigators, abuse management organisations, security community, researchers, and others (who the Database Task Force never identified). cheers denis On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 03:51, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Dear WG,
The Discussion Phase of policy proposal 2023-04 "Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments" has now ended. Many thanks to all for your comments.
The proposal will now move forward to the Review Phase.
The RIPE NCC will prepare an impact analysis and a draft RIPE Document.
More details about the phases of the Policy Development Process are published here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
You'll also see an announcement from the RIPE NCC soon.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
Hi, On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 12:59:53PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
I am both saddened and yet not surprised by this announcement to move this proposal to the review phase.
As per the PDP, the proposer decides whether to move onward after discussion phase. If the proposer sees value in having a NCC impact analysis, they might do so even if there was some opposition in discussion phase - because it might bring clarity on the merits of arguments either way.
It doesn't seem to matter what anyone says, I suspect this proposal will be approved. You included a link to the Policy Development Process (ripe-781). Pity you have not followed it.
The text could be a bit more clear here, but "If the suggested comments and changes are not so significant as to require a new Discussion Phase, the proposer and WG chairs can decide to move the proposal to the next phase (Review Phase) with a new version of the proposal incorporating the necessary edits." is what gives them the option to move forward - you didn't suggest massive edits, but to kill the proposal, which is still open. [..]
In '2.2 Discussion Phase' it says:
"If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, they need to produce a draft RIPE Document which should be published within four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase, before the proposal can be moved to the Review Phase."
There is a draft document. It does not say "a new draft document" here. (This text is relevant if there was no formal draft document at the beginning of the Discussion phase, which can be done "to test the waters" before writing up something)
This has not been done.
It has.
"The RIPE NCC will need to publish an impact analysis for the proposal 'before' it can be moved to the Review Phase."
This has not been done.
The proposal is not in Review Phase *yet*, and Leo did not suggest otherwise. https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04 does not say "in Review Phase". So indeed, the IA has not been published, but since it's not stating anywhere "in Review Phase", this is not a contradiction. IAs can take time, so this is not an instant over-night thing in the best case, and there is no urgency. [..]
This proposal cannot be moved to the review phase under the current circumstances, if we are actually following the PDP policy.
It can.
Let me summarise my objections. The proposer claims this is an inconsequential change to address policy that does not permit anything to be done that cannot already be done. That has been proven to be a false claim. This is a major change to address policy that will undermine the whole concept of the public registry that we have understood for the last 30 years.
This, in particular, is *your* claim, which I'd like see either backed or dismissed by the impact analysis - I see this as on way "proven". So it's very useful to move forward to "Review Phase with a full IA".
Regardless of the merits of such a major change, we cannot allow such a change based on a few "+1" comments from a handful of the small group of people who dominate and control all policy decisions in this region. AFAIK neither the proposer, nor the RIPE NCC, nor the proposal supporters have made any attempt to reach out to other stakeholder groups who use the RIPE Database to inform them of this discussion, advise them of the potential consequences and invite them to join this discussion.
This is not a requirement of the PDP. Proposals are announced to the PDP-announce-Mailing list, and people interested in policy change are expected to read this. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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
Hi Gert Thanks for your comments. But I think you have missed a couple of important points. It says in the PDP: "In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments and then addressed adequately by the proposer or by any supporter of the proposal." Let me edit that down a bit: In all phases of the RIPE PDP...objections...addressed adequately... So in the discussion phase my objections must be addressed adequately. The proposers have not even acknowledged my objections and still maintain the false view that this proposal is inconsequential. Also you said I haven't suggested any significant change to the proposal. My objections could be addressed by not removing the line: "When an End User has a network using public address space this must be registered separately with the contact details of the End User." That would be a significant change. cheers denis On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 13:13, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 12:59:53PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
I am both saddened and yet not surprised by this announcement to move this proposal to the review phase.
As per the PDP, the proposer decides whether to move onward after discussion phase. If the proposer sees value in having a NCC impact analysis, they might do so even if there was some opposition in discussion phase - because it might bring clarity on the merits of arguments either way.
It doesn't seem to matter what anyone says, I suspect this proposal will be approved. You included a link to the Policy Development Process (ripe-781). Pity you have not followed it.
The text could be a bit more clear here, but
"If the suggested comments and changes are not so significant as to require a new Discussion Phase, the proposer and WG chairs can decide to move the proposal to the next phase (Review Phase) with a new version of the proposal incorporating the necessary edits."
is what gives them the option to move forward - you didn't suggest massive edits, but to kill the proposal, which is still open.
[..]
In '2.2 Discussion Phase' it says:
"If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, they need to produce a draft RIPE Document which should be published within four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase, before the proposal can be moved to the Review Phase."
There is a draft document. It does not say "a new draft document" here.
(This text is relevant if there was no formal draft document at the beginning of the Discussion phase, which can be done "to test the waters" before writing up something)
This has not been done.
It has.
"The RIPE NCC will need to publish an impact analysis for the proposal 'before' it can be moved to the Review Phase."
This has not been done.
The proposal is not in Review Phase *yet*, and Leo did not suggest otherwise.
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04
does not say "in Review Phase".
So indeed, the IA has not been published, but since it's not stating anywhere "in Review Phase", this is not a contradiction. IAs can take time, so this is not an instant over-night thing in the best case, and there is no urgency.
[..]
This proposal cannot be moved to the review phase under the current circumstances, if we are actually following the PDP policy.
It can.
Let me summarise my objections. The proposer claims this is an inconsequential change to address policy that does not permit anything to be done that cannot already be done. That has been proven to be a false claim. This is a major change to address policy that will undermine the whole concept of the public registry that we have understood for the last 30 years.
This, in particular, is *your* claim, which I'd like see either backed or dismissed by the impact analysis - I see this as on way "proven".
So it's very useful to move forward to "Review Phase with a full IA".
Regardless of the merits of such a major change, we cannot allow such a change based on a few "+1" comments from a handful of the small group of people who dominate and control all policy decisions in this region. AFAIK neither the proposer, nor the RIPE NCC, nor the proposal supporters have made any attempt to reach out to other stakeholder groups who use the RIPE Database to inform them of this discussion, advise them of the potential consequences and invite them to join this discussion.
This is not a requirement of the PDP. Proposals are announced to the PDP-announce-Mailing list, and people interested in policy change are expected to read this.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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
Dear Denis, Our processes don't move super fast. This is partly deliberate. We don't want to railroad the community. It is also practical. There are actions to be carried out between the end of one phase and the start of another. The proposers have taken account of the "significant comments or changes [...] suggested during the Discussion Phase." They have been preparing a draft RIPE Document with help from the RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC has been developing an impact analysis. They understandably don't start that work until there's a decision on whether the proposal will move forward. All of these things take some time to accomplish. That is why there is a small gap between the formal end of the Discussion phase and the start of the Review phase. Your objections have not been ignored. We will schedule time in Rome to discuss the objections you have raised. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 04:00, denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Leo, Colleagues
I am both saddened and yet not surprised by this announcement to move this proposal to the review phase. It doesn't seem to matter what anyone says, I suspect this proposal will be approved. You included a link to the Policy Development Process (ripe-781). Pity you have not followed it. Now suggesting we follow a process, Jim Reid will argue I am trying to turn RIPE into some "process heavy organisation". But the PDP is a policy. So do we get to pick and choose which bits of which policies we apply or ignore? If that is the case why not just dump all policy and work to a general understanding. It might be more honest.
Let's walk through the PDP as defined in ripe-781. Starting with '2. The Process'.
"These phases are detailed below with proposed timelines for the various stages. These may differ for individual proposals, but the actual timelines must be documented."
In the opening email Angela stated that the four week Discussion Phase will run until 3 October 2023.
"At the end of each phase of the process, one of the chairs of the relevant WG will summarise the state of discussion on the WG mailing list."
This has not been done.
"In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments and then addressed adequately by the proposer or by any supporter of the proposal."
I have objected to this proposal on several grounds. I have justified my objections with significant supporting arguments. A number of people have supported the principle of my objections. Some people who initially gave the proposal a "+1" response have since withdrawn that support based on my objections. Neither the proposers, nor their supporters (the +1 brigade), have addressed my objections. Even worse than that, the proposers still deny that this proposal changes anything substantially with regard to address policy. They still claim it does not allow anything to be done that cannot already be done. I have adequately shown this argument to be false. Neither the proposers nor their supporters have even acknowledged this fact. A number of people have agreed that such a fundamental change to address policy should not be introduced as a (hidden) side effect of another, apparently inconsequential, change. If such a change is to be introduced, which may or may not have merits of its own, it should be openly discussed as a separate topic. Given that these objections are highly significant, and that they have been completely ignored by the proposers and supporters and not "addressed adequately", the chairs of the AP-WG cannot declare an initial consensus and move this proposal to the review phase.
In '2.2 Discussion Phase' it says:
"If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, they need to produce a draft RIPE Document which should be published within four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase, before the proposal can be moved to the Review Phase."
This has not been done.
"The RIPE NCC will need to publish an impact analysis for the proposal 'before' it can be moved to the Review Phase."
This has not been done.
I am raising these issues today as it is the last day of the discussion phase according to the diagram in Appendix A of ripe-781. Even though the diagram does not agree with the text in ripe-781. I have allowed the 5 weeks after the discussion phase shown in the diagram, rather than the 4 weeks stated in the text.
This proposal cannot be moved to the review phase under the current circumstances, if we are actually following the PDP policy.
Let me summarise my objections. The proposer claims this is an inconsequential change to address policy that does not permit anything to be done that cannot already be done. That has been proven to be a false claim. This is a major change to address policy that will undermine the whole concept of the public registry that we have understood for the last 30 years. Regardless of the merits of such a major change, we cannot allow such a change based on a few "+1" comments from a handful of the small group of people who dominate and control all policy decisions in this region. AFAIK neither the proposer, nor the RIPE NCC, nor the proposal supporters have made any attempt to reach out to other stakeholder groups who use the RIPE Database to inform them of this discussion, advise them of the potential consequences and invite them to join this discussion. Stakeholder groups like LEAs, government regulators, private investigators, abuse management organisations, security community, researchers, and others (who the Database Task Force never identified).
cheers denis
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 03:51, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Dear WG,
The Discussion Phase of policy proposal 2023-04 "Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments" has now ended. Many thanks to all for your comments.
The proposal will now move forward to the Review Phase.
The RIPE NCC will prepare an impact analysis and a draft RIPE Document.
More details about the phases of the Policy Development Process are published here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
You'll also see an announcement from the RIPE NCC soon.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
Hi Leo On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 22:04, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Dear Denis,
Our processes don't move super fast. This is partly deliberate. We don't want to railroad the community. It is also practical. There are actions to be carried out between the end of one phase and the start of another.
The proposers have taken account of the "significant comments or changes [...] suggested during the Discussion Phase." They have been preparing a draft RIPE Document with help from the RIPE NCC.
The RIPE NCC has been developing an impact analysis. They understandably don't start that work until there's a decision on whether the proposal will move forward.
All of these things take some time to accomplish. That is why there is a small gap between the formal end of the Discussion phase and the start of the Review phase.
The delays are understandable. Maybe that should be clearly reflected in the PDP process.
Your objections have not been ignored. We will schedule time in Rome to discuss the objections you have raised.
I look forward to that (remotely). cheers denis
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 04:00, denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Leo, Colleagues
I am both saddened and yet not surprised by this announcement to move this proposal to the review phase. It doesn't seem to matter what anyone says, I suspect this proposal will be approved. You included a link to the Policy Development Process (ripe-781). Pity you have not followed it. Now suggesting we follow a process, Jim Reid will argue I am trying to turn RIPE into some "process heavy organisation". But the PDP is a policy. So do we get to pick and choose which bits of which policies we apply or ignore? If that is the case why not just dump all policy and work to a general understanding. It might be more honest.
Let's walk through the PDP as defined in ripe-781. Starting with '2. The Process'.
"These phases are detailed below with proposed timelines for the various stages. These may differ for individual proposals, but the actual timelines must be documented."
In the opening email Angela stated that the four week Discussion Phase will run until 3 October 2023.
"At the end of each phase of the process, one of the chairs of the relevant WG will summarise the state of discussion on the WG mailing list."
This has not been done.
"In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments and then addressed adequately by the proposer or by any supporter of the proposal."
I have objected to this proposal on several grounds. I have justified my objections with significant supporting arguments. A number of people have supported the principle of my objections. Some people who initially gave the proposal a "+1" response have since withdrawn that support based on my objections. Neither the proposers, nor their supporters (the +1 brigade), have addressed my objections. Even worse than that, the proposers still deny that this proposal changes anything substantially with regard to address policy. They still claim it does not allow anything to be done that cannot already be done. I have adequately shown this argument to be false. Neither the proposers nor their supporters have even acknowledged this fact. A number of people have agreed that such a fundamental change to address policy should not be introduced as a (hidden) side effect of another, apparently inconsequential, change. If such a change is to be introduced, which may or may not have merits of its own, it should be openly discussed as a separate topic. Given that these objections are highly significant, and that they have been completely ignored by the proposers and supporters and not "addressed adequately", the chairs of the AP-WG cannot declare an initial consensus and move this proposal to the review phase.
In '2.2 Discussion Phase' it says:
"If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, they need to produce a draft RIPE Document which should be published within four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase, before the proposal can be moved to the Review Phase."
This has not been done.
"The RIPE NCC will need to publish an impact analysis for the proposal 'before' it can be moved to the Review Phase."
This has not been done.
I am raising these issues today as it is the last day of the discussion phase according to the diagram in Appendix A of ripe-781. Even though the diagram does not agree with the text in ripe-781. I have allowed the 5 weeks after the discussion phase shown in the diagram, rather than the 4 weeks stated in the text.
This proposal cannot be moved to the review phase under the current circumstances, if we are actually following the PDP policy.
Let me summarise my objections. The proposer claims this is an inconsequential change to address policy that does not permit anything to be done that cannot already be done. That has been proven to be a false claim. This is a major change to address policy that will undermine the whole concept of the public registry that we have understood for the last 30 years. Regardless of the merits of such a major change, we cannot allow such a change based on a few "+1" comments from a handful of the small group of people who dominate and control all policy decisions in this region. AFAIK neither the proposer, nor the RIPE NCC, nor the proposal supporters have made any attempt to reach out to other stakeholder groups who use the RIPE Database to inform them of this discussion, advise them of the potential consequences and invite them to join this discussion. Stakeholder groups like LEAs, government regulators, private investigators, abuse management organisations, security community, researchers, and others (who the Database Task Force never identified).
cheers denis
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 03:51, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Dear WG,
The Discussion Phase of policy proposal 2023-04 "Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments" has now ended. Many thanks to all for your comments.
The proposal will now move forward to the Review Phase.
The RIPE NCC will prepare an impact analysis and a draft RIPE Document.
More details about the phases of the Policy Development Process are published here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
You'll also see an announcement from the RIPE NCC soon.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
participants (3)
-
denis walker -
Gert Doering -
Leo Vegoda