[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 03:44:02PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> > >    It is contrary to the goals of this document
> > >    and is not in the interests of the Internet 
> > >    community as a whole for address space to be
> > >    considered freehold property. 
> > 
> > Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents 
> > into account?  "Different circumstances".
> 
> Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not
> make any distinction between the two versions of IP.

Since this statement is very much obviously in the context of IPv6, why
should it mention IPv4, or point out that "differently from the rest
of the document, we're only talking about IPv6 here"?


> > > 2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and
> > 
> > This is exactly the point of a "v3" of this document: take 
> > into account previous discussions and comments, and try 
> > finding a consensus on the reworked document.
> > 
> > The argument "I reject this version because no consensus was 
> > formed on a previous version" is not a very useful 
> > contribution, in itself - if you have specific issues with 
> > *v3* (or your concerns about v1 and v2 are still 
> > un-addressed), please voice them.
> 
> When there is a huge lack of consensus in favour of a policy
> proposal, that proposal should be abandoned. It goes against
> consensus to continually make small changes to the proposal
> and extend the whole process by months or years. This does not
> help the stakeholders in RIPE and I do not believe that this
> is what people expect from the WG chairs.

I don't see a "huge lack of consensus".  

I see specific worries (that can be addressed), and I did see some
statements of support.

Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has no 
significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's "individuals taking 
part in the discussion" not "I represent a bigger organization that
you"), fundamentally opposing anything, without being willing to start
a constructive dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments.

Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew their
statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements are 
already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust their
position.  Which is not the way to constructively go about changing
policies.


> But you asked for specific issues. 

Thanks!

I leave it to the proposers of the protocol to answer these.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chairs
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279