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

["Jeffrey A. Williams" jwkckid1@localhost]

Michael and all,

  Michael, Leo is not particularly interested in consensus if
the consenses actually disagrees with him.

michael.dillon@localhost wrote:

> > 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"?
>
> The IPv6 policy document was a global project so it reflects
> the overall basis on which an IPv6 policy was started. In
> other words, that statement about addresses not being freehold
> property refers to IPv4 and says that IPv6 is just the same,
> not freehold property which an organization can buy or sell.
>
> > I don't see a "huge lack of consensus".
>
> Count the messages in the Address Policy WG archive discussing
> 2007-08 since June. That is what I consider to be a huge
> lack of consensus.
>
> > 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.
>
> This is not very constructive dialog and I am disturbed to see
> a WG chair writing this kind of stuff.
>
> A. I did not wave the ETNO flag. I merely repeated one point that
> ETNO had raised, along with one point from Eric Schmidt, one from
> Jay Daley, and one from Per Heldal. All of these points come from
> the message of Sander Steffann which he posted on June 13th and
> for which I provided the URL in my first message.
>
> B. When you asked for specific issues I decided to clarify
> with more than a reference to Sander's message. I pointed out
> some specific issues which have not yet been resolved, and
> which, I believe, cannot be resolved.
>
> C. Regardless of how ETNO reaches the positions in its position
> papers, the fact is that they do publish them. This means that
> we need to take them into consideration if we consider the RIPE
> process to be open and transparent. I note that people from at
> least two other ETNO members (France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom)
> also posted to this list, i.e. they took part in the discussion.
> Rather than insulting people because they happen to work for a
> company which happens to be a member of ETNO, we should be making
> greater attempts to engage them in the discussion here. I've
> done a bit of that, which is why FT and DT have participated
> a bit, but I believe that the main responsibility for bringing
> people into the discussion falls on the WG chairs.
>
> The fact remains that you cannot reach a consensus without
> an active discussion.
>
> --Michael Dillon

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@localhost
My Phone: 214-244-4827