Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Assisted Registry Checks

Wed Jun 26 16:08:49 UTC 2019

See below, in-line. I think you’re getting confused …


El 26/6/19 17:53, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at> escribió:


Hi all, 

Please see below (inline)...


Le 6/26/2019 à 9:36 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD a écrit :

I just got one idea … One possibility to make it more neutral and having the knowledge of the operational insights …


 Hi Jordi, if i'm getting you well, (permit me please) you are saying that it if we need a policy proposal turned as an operational procedure, we should leave the exclisivity up to the Staff to submit it to the PDWG prior to be implemented... Am i wrong ?


1: I don’t believe something like the ARC should be a policy. It is just an operational issue. The RSA already allows the staff to tackle it.


Even if normally the staff doesn’t submit policy proposals, is perfectly valid. Nothing is against that in the PDP. They follow exactly the same process: the community must also approve it.


 IMHO, i see no real need (yes :-) the neutrality you mentioned above) to *Varying the process* here. I mean someone, from the PDWG, should just submit it (if needed), then it will follow the normal PDP (Impact Analysis Report will raise the Staff concern then).


2: Mixing things doesn’t help at all to have all this clearer. I’m not saying the staff needs to use the variance process at all. I’m saying that if the community believes this should be a policy (I don’t think is needed), it is just fine, according to the PDP (nothing special), that this policy proposal is done by the staff and the community will need to agree on consensus, just like *any other policy proposal*


My point is that, we want the Staff more proactive [1], to *timely* provide needed information (including legal one) both onlist and at PPM (CPM section 3.4.0), to *timely* provide Impact Analysis Reports (CPM section 3.4.1)...and as actually proven, it's not easy to get it done.


3: Again, don’t mix things, I’m not talking about the impact analysis. You can see the email subject is ARC.


This way it was developed in RIPE NCC.


Maybe Ernest, Madhvi or other staff want to take it?


...i don't think that they should be involved in the PDP as author, even just in case of emergency :-)

Is there not also a bit of *conflict of interest* ?


4: No variance, the PDP allows the staff to submit policy proposals. Doesn’t happen often, but is quite admissible if we want the ARC to be a policy instead of just an operational procedure.


Again, they could do this just an operational procedure, but if we prefer a policy, this is nice way in the middle.


Ok with that, and again i see no problem if any other participant (or an other special WG which may exist ?) decides to author|submit such an operational policy proposal :-) 


[1]: <>












El 26/6/19 10:29, "Nasir Faruk" <nasirfaruk at> escribió:




I think the author sent ARC document as a suggestion or rather something worth looking at that could assists to shape the discussion on INR. I am sure it's presented as a new proposal.


@Dewole, i hope i'm right?


Best Regards




Sylvain B.
Website : <>
Wiki : <>
Surveys : <>
Subscribe to Mailing List : <>
Mailing List's Archives : <>
Last Event's Feed : <>
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at 

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list