Hi, On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 11:20:51PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > Just a brief point. I previously noted here that RIPE's rules requiring > unanimity or near unanimity in order to declare "consensus" with respect > to any given proposal has recently been recognized, by some EU politicians > at least, as being a material impediment to forward movement on various > issues.
RIPE does not require unanimity to declare consensus. What *is* required is significant support and that all objections raised have been sufficiently addressed. If and when that is reached is judged by the WG chairs, and sometimes this is a very tough job (if there have been lengthy and heated discussions on some side aspects, for example). For RIPE's address policy WG, I used to point at RFC7282, which describes the goals for "IETF consensus" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282) Gert Doering -- somewhat involved in RIPE policy things -- 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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
