[address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01)

Three in a row: three consecutive, mutually reinforcing indications of bad faith.
 
John Curran: "eek! I can't participate in policy development." Well, sure you can at the IGF, and besides it isn't really "policy development" of the sort you are pretending to be afraid of. Everyone knows that IGF is a non-binding discussion forum and its purpose, if it has a purpose at all, is to do precisely the kind of thing I am proposing - namely, bring multiple stakeholders together in a safe, non-negotiating atmosphere to see where cooperation can move forward in other forums. Are you saying that it is ok for NRO people to do this among themselves, but not out in the open in an inclusive way? Please reconsider.
 	
Scott Leibrand: "we shouldn't have a global policy because of 'differences in the different regions' situations...'" In other words (to translate from the original American), "my region has a self-interest in creating trade barriers." Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. And your second point seems to boil down to this: those of us currently running RIRs feel more comfortable doing bilateral deals with our buddies in other RIRs. Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. So you don't think there's anything wrong with that? So you don't want to let anyone else in the game? Please reconsider.  

McTim: "so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F??". Yes, duh, that's what the IGF is for. What is so odd and difficult about well-intentioned people meeting at the IGF, finding out what kind of a proposal(s) could be on the table, debating their merits and demerits, and agreeing to take what is agreeable into those Fora in a coordinated way?. Can you tell me again why you fear that? 

Let's lay this out even clearer for all to see: 

Any time someone expresses dissatisfaction with current RIR approaches to address policy, out comes the broken record: "make a policy proposal and put it before the RIRs." And as soon as someone starts to do that, and asks you to get serious about cooperating with them, you come up with a dozen lame excuses to tell them, as Randy colorfully put it, to "foad"

The workshop will happen. There will be a global proposal. You CAN make it fail and you probably will. But in the not-so-long run, that could end up being a major defeat for you, not me and the others you think you are fending off. A lot of people are starting to watch this. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of McTim
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:27 PM
> To: RIPE Address Policy Working Group
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01)
> 
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process
> >> for submission of global policies in the Internet number registry
> >> system In fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the
> >> other day -
> >> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/04/06/the-coming-trade-war-in
> >> -
> >> ip-address-blocks/#comment-1031>
> >
> > [Milton L Mueller]
> >
> > Yes, John and I have had many conversations about this.
> >
> > I will be putting together a workshop at the Baku IGF on precisely
> > this topic. Why don't we use that opportunity to make it a real
> > WORKshop and attempt to develop consensus around a global policy that
> > could be submitted
> 
> so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be
> decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F??
> 
> As John has indicated, it wouldn't be appropriate for RIR staff to
> represent their respective community's position since in some cases they
> don't know what it would be unless a proposal is put in front of their
> community, and it is not the role of the RIR staff to make global
> policy.
> 
> You would have more success (I think) if you used the argument "we
> should all run out at the same time" to push for a global transfer
> policy.  I don't think an appeal to free market purism will win many
> folk, at least that is my sense from my experience as a co-chair of the
> AfriNIC PDWG.  We rejected a free market based proposal less than a year
> ago.
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  following the procedure John has outlined? Are you in John?
> > How about a RIPE-NCC representative? Any takers?
> >
> >
> >