[Accountability-tf] Fwd: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

Dear Malcolm!
Thank for your paper on consensus, i'm sure everyone read it.

But, it still not finished (in Chair's part). And seems we all are
waiting for next episode.

Actually, in part of community residing in my region, "rough
consensus" is mostly understood as something Chair centered.
Due to historical reasons consensus in my part seems to be
unreachable, so "rough consensus" is kind of an option for stopping
discussion and moving forward.
So selection of chair, and it's behavior and accountability is really important.

Regarding to forwarded APWG e-mail.
I think it's not controversial to your paper - it just adds another,
"level" dimension to objections specified in your paper.

Kind regards,
Alexander Isavnin

2018-01-15 16:44 GMT+03:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>:
> I thought I'd give anyone here who doesn't follow Address Policy Working
> Group a heads-up on this thread. (see below)
>
> And to ask, what's next? Or perhaps just, *bump*.
>
> Did anybody ready my paper on rought consensus? Any feedback?
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean
> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:59:32 +0100
> From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
> To: Joao Damas <joao at bondis.org>
> CC: Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net, Jordi Palet
> Martínez <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Joao Damas wrote:
>> Well, that feels like just a way of cutting a discussion short.
>> One might want to read on the Dutch polder-model as an example of
>> how to cooperate with recognised differences.
>
> APWG works on "rough consensus" and "all objections have been *addressed*"
> - which does not require "the person raising the objection is convinced
> and withdraws his or her objection".  We try to convince :-) - but since
> this does not always work, it's called "rough" consensus.
>
> Besides this, there is different types of objections
>
>  - "I fully object to changing anything in this general direction, ever!"
>  - "I think this is good, but I disagree with the wording, because..."
>  - "I think this is good, and I see the need for a change, but the
> proposed policy change is not the right way to do it / is too limited,
>     we should aim for a larger and more encompassing change"
>
>
> Type 1 objections can not be "postponed" - if you go somewhere against
> strong objection to the general direction, you need convincing, counter
> arguments, and occasionally you end up at "withdraw due to no consensus"
> (and sometimes the consensus is rougher than usual).
>
> Type 2 objections are usually dealt with by going through a few review
> cycles with new text, incorporating such input into new versions of the
> document.  This is what we've had here: there was feedback to earlier
> policy text, and Max did quite a few rounds based on that feedback,
> together with RS, to come up with text that is clear to RS and to the WG.
>
> Type 3 objections can be handled by taking notice of them, and starting a
> new policy proposal with the larger change after this one is done.
>
>
> Jordi's is - as I explained in my summary mail without detailling these
> categories - "type 3".  The WG has discussed his alternative idea, and
> there was not enough backing to change 2016-04 into something more
> general - instead there was support to finish 2016-04 *now*, instead of
> leaving those impacted by the current policy shortcomings waiting
> further, until we have consensus on how a larger policy change would
> look like.
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
>