[address-policy-wg] consensus and 2011-02

Hi Jim,

I also think that your argument: 'one person can not block'

is valid.

However, I am not alone. I remember people from Norvege, Germany, Ukraine,
etc, sharing the concerns or even expressing better than I did.

Perhaps also you!

Fredy Kuenzler - How More Specifics increase your transit bill (and ways to
avoid it)this was a nice talk on Tuesday's plenary, explaining how and why
to keep the routing table simpler and smaller - in a little bit different
context.

Unfortunately very few "PI+1 activists" attended....

Is the old concensus that we should listen to the others still valid?

You do, I know, but what about these "PI+1 activists"?

Best,

Géza




On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

> On 9 Dec 2011, at 14:42, Peter Koch wrote:
>
>  If it's all about 'one person cannot block' then tell me, how many
>> would it need?
>>
>
> The same number as it needs in the dnsop WG you chair at IETF Peter. :-)
>
> We both know this is not decided by absolute numbers Peter. The Chair(s)
> of the relevant WG exercise their best judgement on the position of the WG
> as a whole. [That's why they get the big bucks. :-)] If they believe
> there's consensus in the WG, that's the decision. They could decide that
> one lone voice knows better than the rest of the WG => further discussion
> or refinement of the proposal is needed. That will depend on the specific
> circumstances and the nature of that (isolated?) objection.
>
> Note too that the earlier discussion was sparked by the suggestion that
> there could be no consensus on 2011-02 unless Geza said this was OK. We
> both know that this is not how RIPE's consensus decision-making process
> works.
>
> You might recall how the DNS WG arrived at a consensus response to the DoC
> proposal for getting the DNS root signed a few years ago and who made the
> judgement on whether a consensus had been reached. Some people were unhappy
> or uncomfortable with aspects of that response yet it still managed to
> emerge as a consensus view of the WG. And ultimately of the RIPE community.
>
>
>
> (BTW, thsi is not a RIPE matter, however, a global one)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20111210/b3626f53/attachment.html>