Hi Jim,<br><br>I also think that your argument: 'one person can not block'<br><br>is valid.<br><br>However, I am not alone. I remember people from Norvege, Germany, Ukraine, etc, sharing the concerns or even expressing better than I did.<br>
<br>Perhaps also you!<br><br><h2>Fredy Kuenzler - How More Specifics increase your transit bill (and ways to avoid it)</h2>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.<br>
<br>Unfortunately very few "PI+1 activists" attended....<br><br>Is the old concensus that we should listen to the others still valid?<br><br>You do, I know, but what about these "PI+1 activists"?<br><br>
Best,<br><br>Géza<br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jim Reid <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jim@rfc1035.com">jim@rfc1035.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On 9 Dec 2011, at 14:42, Peter Koch wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If it's all about 'one person cannot block' then tell me, how many<br>
would it need?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
The same number as it needs in the dnsop WG you chair at IETF Peter. :-)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>(BTW, thsi is not a RIPE matter, however, a global one)<br>