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

Hi,

"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" -
really? RIPE members should vote, since they are the ones affected, they are
the ones telling the RIPE NCC how to act (at least that's my understanding -
RIPE NCC works FOR RIPE, RIPE which is made of members of EQUAL rights and
obligations). Of course, on the mailing lists ANYONE can intervene, and
point out concerns, modifications, etc, and based on what is discussed
there, the RIPE members vote. How to get them to vote - that is a totally
different question - in Holland as far as I know, voting is COMPULSORY, and
you face a penalty if you don't vote - I'm not saying to do something like
this, but methods can be found. Also, I can agree there should be a minimum
quorum, so that it doesn't happen that only 10 members vote and decide for
hundreds of others. A 30% minimum votes I think is feasible. Vote rigging?
Really? How do you come to that conclusion? It's not like we are in the US
congress and have lobbists who push/bribe/bring illegal voters to get their
way ... come on...

" 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." 
I totally agree it's not an exact science, but the (two) deciders who
basically have the final word, should be 100% neutral. As somebody else
mentioned, you leave the impression of beeing biased to this exact policy.

" I'm not "some people" :-)" - you were not the only one implying that
people who never spoke up before don't have the same weight in this
decision. I don't want to point fingers, it is nothing personal.

Again, please understand that I agree with most of your affirmations. I also
fully agree that a policy should be put in place to avoid abuse of the last
/8 (the RIPE NCC does not see it as an abuse, I reiterate this, and also
does not see this policy as having a real impact), but this policy does not
do that. In my opinion, other mechanisms should be enforced - for example,
what procentage of the /22s allocated are beeing announced? Just that the
LIR was not closed, it does not mean the /22 was not hoarded. 


Matei Storch
[F]: General Manager
[M]: +40728.555.004
[E]: matei at profisol.ro
[C]: Profisol Telecom


-----Original Message-----
From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 14:03
To: Storch Matei
Cc: Gert Doering; Vladimir Andreev; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [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