[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:35:51AM +0300, Storch Matei wrote:
> I'm sorry, but from this reply I understand two things:
> 1) if somebody speaks up for the first time, that someone's opinion values less than that of somebody that spoje up before.
> 2) if somebody speaks up well within the set timeline, but on the very last day, it's suspicious (to say it mildly).

Thing is, anyone can send a mail to this list, and generally speaking,
everyone's opinion is listened to.

Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of show
up, from freemail accounts, and send "-1"s without any arguments, I think
you can understand that it's a bit hard to see whether these are people
legitimately concerned with specific reasons why they do not like the
proposal, or just straw men.  I can't tell, so I won't dismiss the mails
summarily - but when judging the overall result, this certainly will
influence the way we look at them.

> I agree that any -1s especially (preferably also +1s) should be argumented, but those arguments should not be thrown out simply because "it's the last day" or because "you never spoke here before", which is was has been done here by some people.

I'm not "some people" :-)

> Also, "to deal with the concerns" is pretty vague, especially in establishing when the concern has been dealt with. A reply from someone expressing disagreement with a concern does not mean the concern was dealt with.

This is the way rough consensus works - we will hardly ever reach unanimous
agreement to a proposal, and quite often, we will not be able to convince
everyone that we should do or not do something.  But what we can do is to
ensure that reasonable concerns (read: those that are clearly spelled out
and are not totally made up) are at least answered.

What is "reasonable" is sometimes very hard to judge when it comes to
expectations, assumptions and predictions about things that might or might
not happen in 5 years.  This is not a very exact science.

> My concern regarding the RIPE NCC impact analysis were (from my understanding) it is said that this policy will not address the actual hoarding problem was not even slightly dealt with, just an example.

I have to admit that I lost a bit track in the current hubbub about who
said what, and who answered what, and who went off into non-relevant side-track
discussions.  Sander will look at it with a more detached eye and present
his findings.

[..]
> I strongly feel that any kind of policy change (resource related
> or not) that would impact members directly should be voted upon -
> electronically, without the need of a RIPE meeting. Of course prior
> to voting all discussions should take place on mailing lists. The
> infrastructure is already setup. We are all ISPs and/or internet
> related businesses, I think we can all find 5 mins online in a 24h
> period to vote...

No.  Voting can be even more easily rigged than consensus building on
a public mailing list.

(For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote,
and how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
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 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150610/dcbc7376/attachment.sig>