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

> 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"?

The IPv6 policy document was a global project so it reflects
the overall basis on which an IPv6 policy was started. In 
other words, that statement about addresses not being freehold
property refers to IPv4 and says that IPv6 is just the same,
not freehold property which an organization can buy or sell.

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

Count the messages in the Address Policy WG archive discussing
2007-08 since June. That is what I consider to be a huge
lack of consensus. 

> 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.

This is not very constructive dialog and I am disturbed to see
a WG chair writing this kind of stuff. 

A. I did not wave the ETNO flag. I merely repeated one point that
ETNO had raised, along with one point from Eric Schmidt, one from
Jay Daley, and one from Per Heldal. All of these points come from
the message of Sander Steffann which he posted on June 13th and
for which I provided the URL in my first message. 

B. When you asked for specific issues I decided to clarify
with more than a reference to Sander's message. I pointed out
some specific issues which have not yet been resolved, and 
which, I believe, cannot be resolved. 

C. Regardless of how ETNO reaches the positions in its position
papers, the fact is that they do publish them. This means that
we need to take them into consideration if we consider the RIPE
process to be open and transparent. I note that people from at
least two other ETNO members (France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom)
also posted to this list, i.e. they took part in the discussion. 
Rather than insulting people because they happen to work for a
company which happens to be a member of ETNO, we should be making
greater attempts to engage them in the discussion here. I've
done a bit of that, which is why FT and DT have participated
a bit, but I believe that the main responsibility for bringing
people into the discussion falls on the WG chairs. 

The fact remains that you cannot reach a consensus without 
an active discussion.

--Michael Dillon