On 2023 May 15 (Mon) at 12:10:22 +0200 (+0200), Sander Steffann 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 What a waste of time. The charis need to sort this out and stop fucking up a clearly desired and clearly necessary thing. If they can't, or aren't willing to, then they should step down. -- Fuch's Warning: If you actually look like your passport photo, you aren't well enough to travel.