[Accountability-tf] Fwd: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

I thought I'd give anyone here who doesn't follow Address Policy Working
Group a heads-up on this thread. (see below)

And to ask, what's next? Or perhaps just, *bump*.

Did anybody ready my paper on rought consensus? Any feedback?

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:59:32 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
To: Joao Damas <joao at bondis.org>
CC: Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net, Jordi Palet
Martínez <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Joao Damas wrote:
> Well, that feels like just a way of cutting a discussion short.
> One might want to read on the Dutch polder-model as an example of
> how to cooperate with recognised differences.

APWG works on "rough consensus" and "all objections have been *addressed*"
- which does not require "the person raising the objection is convinced
and withdraws his or her objection".  We try to convince :-) - but since
this does not always work, it's called "rough" consensus.

Besides this, there is different types of objections

 - "I fully object to changing anything in this general direction, ever!"
 - "I think this is good, but I disagree with the wording, because..."
 - "I think this is good, and I see the need for a change, but the
proposed policy change is not the right way to do it / is too limited,
    we should aim for a larger and more encompassing change"


Type 1 objections can not be "postponed" - if you go somewhere against
strong objection to the general direction, you need convincing, counter
arguments, and occasionally you end up at "withdraw due to no consensus"
(and sometimes the consensus is rougher than usual).

Type 2 objections are usually dealt with by going through a few review
cycles with new text, incorporating such input into new versions of the
document.  This is what we've had here: there was feedback to earlier
policy text, and Max did quite a few rounds based on that feedback,
together with RS, to come up with text that is clear to RS and to the WG.

Type 3 objections can be handled by taking notice of them, and starting a
new policy proposal with the larger change after this one is done.


Jordi's is - as I explained in my summary mail without detailling these
categories - "type 3".  The WG has discussed his alternative idea, and
there was not enough backing to change 2016-04 into something more
general - instead there was support to finish 2016-04 *now*, instead of
leaving those impacted by the current policy shortcomings waiting
further, until we have consensus on how a larger policy change would
look like.

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