[address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02

I agree that rough consensus has been established.

Scott

On Dec 8, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Dear AP WG,
>
> 2011-02 has been a difficult one, and you have noticed the lack of
> visible progress.  So let us explain, and propose a way forward.
>
> The RIPE policy development process calls for "consensus" to make
> policy from policy proposals.  Sometimes it's very clear if consensus
> has been reached, and sometimes it's very clear that consensus has
> NOT been reached.
>
> When looking for consensus, we have to see if there are objections to the
> proposal, and if those objections are justified - see the beginning of
> section 2 of RIPE-500: 'In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions
> for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must
> be justified with supporting arguments'. This is explicitly repeated in
> section 2.4.
>
> In 2011-02, we have the case of "rough consensus with objections":
>
> We have a number of people who spoke up in favour of the proposal, both
> during the discussion/review phases and during Last Call.  A few persons
> had serious doubts about routing table growth and about PI in general, but
> still spoke in favour of the proposal, or abstained.
>
> One person opposes the proposal, based on worries about highly accelerated
> and thus unsustainable routing table growth as a consequence of the
> proposal.
>
> Given that some of the other RIRs already have less restrictive IPv6 PI
> policies, the available numbers on their PI assignments and the routes
> seen in the global IPv6 BGP table do not back this assumption.  Neither
> does the data from the global IPv4 BGP table, where the RIPE region has
> always had a very relaxed PI policy.
>
> So the AP WG chairs have decided (after long discussion) that we do
> have rough consensus on this policy proposal, and the remaining
> objections will be ignored.  Sander Steffann announced this at the
> APWG meeting - and one member of the WG spoke up at the microphone
> and disagreed with our conclusion.
>
> So we spent some more weeks discussing and thinking about this, and
> this is what we do now:
>
> - the WG chairs declare consensus
>
> - but the *working group* has the last word on any policy decision,
>   so we call for two weeks of "Last Call" on this decision
>
>
> Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and
> it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc.
> now - we've heard all arguments.  What we need to decide now is whether
> the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the
> proposal, or not.
>
> If you, the WG, decides that we do not have consensus, the policy proposal
> goes back to "discussion phase", and the proposer will need to work with
> those people that spoke up against the proposal to integrate their ideas,
> and come up with a new version of the policy proposal that might then
> reach consensus.
>
> sincerly yours,
>
>        Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs
>
> --
> 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 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>