RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

[<mark.h.mcfadden@localhost]

Gert:

this:

>> Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has no 
>> significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's "individuals taking

>> part in the discussion" not "I represent a bigger organization that 
>> you"), fundamentally opposing anything, without being willing to 
>> start a constructive dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments.
>> 
>> Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew 
>> their statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements

>> are already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust 
>> their position.  Which is not the way to constructively go about 
>> changing policies.

Just seems plain wrong.  I wonder where you got this idea.

ETNO does have significance in RIPE policy processes: it's members are
paid-up, card-carrying LIRs.  They get to propose, react to and discuss
RIPE policy issues just like anyone else.  I've never seen anyone from
ETNO suggest on this list anything to the effect of "I represent a
bigger organization than you."  I'd like to see a reference or source
for that remark.  The next two statements are factually incorrect.  ETNO
made a presentation on principles regarding IPv4 exhaustion in
Amsterdam.  There was tons of feedback at the microphone ( I remember
because I did the presentation ) and the LIRs who are members of ETNO
considered that feedback and even presented a revision of that set of
principles.  Instead of fundamentally opposing anything, they actually
proposed a set of constructive principles to guide policy in the period
of IPv4 free pool exhaustion.

The suggestion that ETNO can't adjust their position is also incorrect.
ETNO did adjust their position in response to the feedback and
discussion on the mailing list after the Amsterdam presentation.  The
LIRs who are a part of ETNO, it seems to me, are linked by a set of
common interests and shared circumstances and very naturally talk
amongst each other on policy issues that matter to them.  My problem
with your attitude toward ETNO is that you seem to ignore the fact that
people talk about RIPE policy development in many places; not just on
the RIPE address policy group mailing list.  When a group of LIRs come
together and say something about policy developments in RIPE, I think
the chair should be welcoming the input rather than disrespecting it in
public.

mark

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost
[
	    
	    
] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 10:18 AM
To: Dillon,M,Michael,DMK R
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published
(Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 03:44:02PM +0100, michael.dillon@localhost wrote:
> > >    It is contrary to the goals of this document
> > >    and is not in the interests of the Internet 
> > >    community as a whole for address space to be
> > >    considered freehold property. 
> > 
> > Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents 
> > into account?  "Different circumstances".
> 
> Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not
> make any distinction between the two versions of IP.

Since this statement is very much obviously in the context of IPv6, why
should it mention IPv4, or point out that "differently from the rest
of the document, we're only talking about IPv6 here"?


> > > 2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed
and
> > 
> > This is exactly the point of a "v3" of this document: take 
> > into account previous discussions and comments, and try 
> > finding a consensus on the reworked document.
> > 
> > The argument "I reject this version because no consensus was 
> > formed on a previous version" is not a very useful 
> > contribution, in itself - if you have specific issues with 
> > *v3* (or your concerns about v1 and v2 are still 
> > un-addressed), please voice them.
> 
> When there is a huge lack of consensus in favour of a policy
> proposal, that proposal should be abandoned. It goes against
> consensus to continually make small changes to the proposal
> and extend the whole process by months or years. This does not
> help the stakeholders in RIPE and I do not believe that this
> is what people expect from the WG chairs.

I don't see a "huge lack of consensus".  

I see specific worries (that can be addressed), and I did see some
statements of support.

Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has no 
significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's "individuals taking 
part in the discussion" not "I represent a bigger organization that
you"), fundamentally opposing anything, without being willing to start
a constructive dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments.

Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew their
statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements are 
already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust their
position.  Which is not the way to constructively go about changing
policies.


> But you asked for specific issues. 

Thanks!

I leave it to the proposers of the protocol to answer these.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chairs
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279