Hi Paul, With all the respect, the community deserves the right to understand your decision based on a summary. This is not written on the PDP, but is a well-known practice, at least in other WGs and the RIPE-710 doesn't forbid doing that summary. On the other side, I'm happy to start an appeal, but it is much easier to, if the actual authors confirm that they aren't going to appeal or re-send a new proposal, myself, or another set of authors, prepare it. Following the RIPE-710, this right CAN'T BE DENIED, as Gert has confirmed yesterday. Having a summary that really justify the decision may provide a better perspective one way or the other. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/7/20 15:52, "routing-wg en nombre de Paul Hoogsteder" <routing-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de paul@meanie.nl> escribió: Hello Jordi, RIPE-710 describes the appeals process. Kind regards, Paul Hoogsteder. > Hi all, > > I must insist here. What is the balance between opposition and support, > following RFC7282, for this specific proposal. Can we have a summary of > the inputs? > > I *could* (once we have the summary) agree that may be there is no > consensus yet, but that is not a sufficient reason to withdraw a proposal. > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > El 9/7/20 15:29, "routing-wg en nombre de Petrit Hasani" > <routing-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de phasani@ripe.net> escribió: > > Dear colleagues, > > The policy proposal 2019-08, "SLURM file for Unallocated and > Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space" has been withdrawn. > > This proposal aimed for the RIPE NCC to publish a SLURM file > (Simplified Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI), > containing assertions with the origin “AS0” for all unallocated > and unassigned address space under our control. > > The proposal is archived and can be found at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive-... > > Reason for withdrawal: > The WG Chair felt that raised concerns remained unaddressed and that > there was a strong opposition against the proposal in the community. > > Kind regards, > -- > Petrit Hasani > Policy Officer > RIPE NCC > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of > the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this > communication and delete it. > > > > > > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi Nick, I was thinking in a summary of the inputs, that bring to that "decision", even if many folks don't see that, it is not the same way you interpret/say things when you aren't native English speaker. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/7/20 16:04, "Nick Hilliard" <nick@foobar.org> escribió: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg wrote on 09/07/2020 14:59: > With all the respect, the community deserves the right to understand > your decision based on a summary. Jordi, Bit puzzled here. A summary was already provided: >> Reason for withdrawal: The WG Chair felt that raised concerns >> remained unaddressed and that there was a strong opposition against >> the proposal in the community. This seems pretty clear. It also looks comparable to most other summaries posted either when policies are withdrawn or given the go-ahead. Nick ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi Gert, You confirmed that is not stated in the RIPE-710 that the chairs can object to publish a proposal and start the discussion. Anyway, this is the REAL FACT: the PDP doesn't allow the chairs to reject a proposal. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/7/20 16:09, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> escribió: Hi, On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 03:59:10PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg wrote: > Following the RIPE-710, this right CAN'T BE DENIED, as Gert has confirmed yesterday. This is not what I said. 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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

This is not the point, neither my intent. Exaggerating it doesn't help. The point is that without a clear summary of what was the discussion, this conclusion that the chairs are summarizing, is not obvious, and in that case, we two ways: 1) appeal 2) sending a new proposal 2 is easier and faster probably. It is not a flooding, is a single proposal. According the PDP there is no way the chairs can reject a proposal. We can even do both of them. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/7/20 16:14, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> escribió: Hi, On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:11:25PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg wrote: > You confirmed that is not stated in the RIPE-710 that the chairs can object to publish a proposal and start the discussion. > > Anyway, this is the REAL FACT: the PDP doesn't allow the chairs to reject a proposal. Again, this is not what I said. Jordi, if you had too much sun, please get some shadow, and do not try to make this into a "I CAN FLOOD THE PDP WITH AS MANY PROPOSALS AS I CAN WRITE!" contest. You can't. Even if it's not explitely written down. 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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Nobody said the same proposal. That's part of the reason a summary of the points is important. I still believe it makes more sense the extend the discussion. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/7/20 16:21, "routing-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" <routing-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de gert@space.net> escribió: Hi, On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:18:35PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg wrote: > 2) sending a new proposal > 2 is easier and faster probably. It is not a flooding, is a single proposal. According the PDP there is no way the chairs can reject a proposal. Repeating the same proposal ad nauseam in the hope that it gets more traction the second time, or that people will tire of repeating their counterarguments again and again is misuse of the PDP. 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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi Kurt, Agree, but as I mention yesterday, the thing is that I’ve seen several times in RIPE, decisions not really following the rough consensus definition. I’m not saying, not at all, that it is easy, but summaries of the discussion (not the conclusion) help to advance, decide better a possible way forward, or even stop. Rough consensus can’t be based on “I don’t like this” “there is strong opposition”, unless technically justified what is broken by the proposal. If the proposal doesn’t break anything, even if is only going to help to something in a 1% it is good for the overall community, so objections are invalid. To be clear, this text is generic, not thinking in the actual discussion/proposal. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/7/20 16:43, "Kurt Kayser" <kurt_kayser@gmx.de> escribió: Hello Jordi, in one way I agree with you, but seeing the history on this topic why not run some type of quick poll to check if people see value to continue on it or not: A: This proposal should be dropped (confirm the chair's intention) B: There is a good intention behind the proposal, but no progress for the content - (stalled?) - are there volunteers to continue on it (if yes, please stand up) C: Abstain to voice no opinion - but counts as active participant Something like this that it helps the chair to make the right choice. Regards, Kurt Am 09.07.20 um 16:26 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg: Nobody said the same proposal. That's part of the reason a summary of the points is important. I still believe it makes more sense the extend the discussion. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/7/20 16:21, "routing-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" <routing-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de gert@space.net> escribió:     Hi,     On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:18:35PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg wrote:     > 2) sending a new proposal     > 2 is easier and faster probably. It is not a flooding, is a single proposal. According the PDP there is no way the chairs can reject a proposal.     Repeating the same proposal ad nauseam in the hope that it gets more     traction the second time, or that people will tire of repeating their     counterarguments again and again is misuse of the PDP.     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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.