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

Thanks Gert!


Hi,

>>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 05:09:08PM +0100, mark.h.mcfadden at bt.com wrote:
>>> > >> 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.
>>> > 
>>> > Just seems plain wrong.  I wonder where you got this idea.
>>>
>>> This is the way it has been received by the readers of this list (not only me).
>>>
>>> I need to reword, and apologize - there are, of course, active participants on this mailing list that are working for ETNO members and that take >>> part in the RIPE processes as concerned individuals.  Which is very welcome.

Some readers?  All readers? Just the readers who have talked to you?  What bothers me about this is that you are willing to speak for an anonymous and unnamed group of "readers," but object when a group of LIRs speaks together with one voice.

>>> What is fairly ill-received is cast-into-stone ETNO "statements of autority"
>>> - statements like this one:
>>>
>>> ------- snip --------
>>> ETNO, in coming to the position that it did, considered the transfer issue from all angles, and the points that you raised in your e-mail were >>> >>> part of that consideration. ETNO will continue to contribute the RIPE mailing list in the future but see no reason at this stage to change its >>> >>> position.
>>> ------- snip --------
>>>
>>> This can be read as "you can talk all you want, but we've decided!" - and this has been, as I wrote, ill-received.

But it could also be read without suspicion and cynicism.  Instead of a "statement of authority" ETNO considered the discussion on the list and came to the conclusion that they were not convinced to change their opinion.  Doesn't this happen all the time?  Why are you singling out ETNO in this case?  As discussions take place on the APWG mailing list many people have a position/opinion and maintain it, despite (or, because of) the ongoing discussion.

>>> > The suggestion that ETNO can't adjust their position is also incorrect.
>>> > ETNO did adjust their position in response to the feedback and 
>>> > discussion on the mailing list after the Amsterdam presentation.  The 
>>> > LIRs who are a part of ETNO, it seems to me, are linked by a set of 
>>> > common interests and shared circumstances and very naturally talk 
>>> > amongst each other on policy issues that matter to them.  My problem 
>>> > with your attitude toward ETNO is that you seem to ignore the fact 
>>> > that people talk about RIPE policy development in many places; not 
>>> > just on the RIPE address policy group mailing list.  When a group of 
>>> > LIRs come together and say something about policy developments in 
>>> > RIPE, I think the chair should be welcoming the input rather than 
>>> > disrespecting it in public.
>>>
>>> I would very much welcome all ETNO members to discuss the matters *here*
>>> - they might even have different opinions regarding proposals.
>>>
>>> Discussing RIPE policy matters outside of RIPE, and then presenting a "joint opinion" statement is not the best way to participate in the process >>> of forming a policy - and it makes it very hard to work with these folks to come to a common way forward.
>>>

I hope you're not suggesting that ETNO members can't choose to talk about RIPE policy matters when they get together.  Of course they can.  And, when they do, if they come to a common understanding and publish that as input to the RIPE APWG, the chair should welcome that input.  Picking and choosing which input the chair finds acceptable is not an appropriate way to form policy.

Mark McFadden

Mark McFadden | Naming, Numbering and Addressing Strategist | Naming, Numbering and Addressing Policy and Strategy Team | BT Design