[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

I think this discussion should not be about the right of the majority or
about ignoring the minority. That is nazi thinking. We should discuss and
appreciate ideas to their value.

But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong but
with the fact that you are not a fair arbitrer. As a WG Chair my opinion is
that you should not take sides. Also NCC should not express opinions but
implement policies fairly.

It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG
Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a
neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be
judging others ? Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not
according to your interests ?

What I have expressed are my opinions as objectives as I can. I really
don't discriminate and there are many people which I don't like and I can
support their ideas, as well as there are many people which I admire and
which I can heavily oppose when it's the case. That's what we all shoud do.
But you are not one of us, you are the Chair so we have different
expectations. Maybe we shouldn't but then what is really your "job"
over here ?

Ciprian

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:44:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote
> > > Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the
> "roughness"
> > > of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices -
> both
> > > the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to
> some
> > > extent the person making a certain argument).
> >
> > I'm certainly not among the fans of Lu but seeing such a statement from
> the
> > WG Chair is unbelieveble. Really ? Do you ever judge a statement based on
> > who is making it and not objectively ?
>
> If we introduce a policy that will stop abusive behaviour by a certain
> minority of the community, *or course* those minority will cry out very
> loudly that they will oppose the proposal.  It would be very surprising
> to see otherwise.
>
> Is it relevant that they are not overly happy with us trying to stop their
> abusive behaviour?  Not very much so.
>
> Of course this requires some community agreement on what "abusive" means,
> so it's very rarely as clear-cut as this.
>
>
> I am not *ignoring* people that turn out to be abusive, violating
> RIPE DB T&C, or are otherwise being an annoyance - but when the discussion
> is less than clear cut, arguments that are brought forward in a sensible,
> well considered and *understandable* way are weighted stronger than
> yelling...
>
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161019/d7702623/attachment.html>