AW: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3

Michael,

sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. Maybe I should apply for a job?

> If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough
> to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. 
> Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because
> they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no
> difference.

I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat quite arrogant by that.

RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop soonest possible. We're in internet business - and rely on phys presence. That's ridicilous.

Btw: No need to hint for proxy votes - who's trusting opponents? And what are proxy votes good for when not having heard or seen the discussion in before?


Marcus

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering IP Services

Versatel West GmbH

Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29
D-44143 Dortmund

Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491
marcus.gerdon at versatel.de | www.versatel.de

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 
Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net 
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von 
> michael.dillon at bt.com
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 13:42
> An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
> 
> 
> > No, it's not a fair or open way to do that. [What about those 
> > who can't physically get to the meeting? Web/phone 
> > participation doesn't count. Who gets to vote?]
> 
> If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough
> to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. 
> Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because
> they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no
> difference.
> 
> > It's also 
> > incompatible with the current Policy Development Process 
> > which is based on list-driven, bottom-up consensus.
> 
> The extraordinary general meeting would not be about changing
> policy, it would be about an activity plan to divide up the 
> remaining inventory of IPv4 addresses between the applicants
> who have requested a piece of the final /8.
> 
> > > Why do we need to decide this today, when there is little 
> > motivation 
> > > to reach a decision and not enough information available 
> to make a 
> > > decision. For instance we do not know what will be the market 
> > > penetration of IPv6 at the point of IANA runout.
> > 
> > IMO this is another reason for not even trying to make a 
> > decision. The current policy isn't broken and doesn't need 
> > fixing.
> 
> This is also a reasonable approach, i.e. I have suggested option
> c) but your suggestion of option d) is also worthy of consideration.
> 
> > I'm glad we agree about something Michael. :-)
> 
> Perhaps we agree that simply re-evaluating options a) and b) is
> not the best way to proceed?
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> 
>