[address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Scott Leibrand
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Thu Dec 8 23:53:07 CET 2011
I agree that rough consensus has been established. Scott On Dec 8, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Dear AP WG, > > 2011-02 has been a difficult one, and you have noticed the lack of > visible progress. So let us explain, and propose a way forward. > > The RIPE policy development process calls for "consensus" to make > policy from policy proposals. Sometimes it's very clear if consensus > has been reached, and sometimes it's very clear that consensus has > NOT been reached. > > When looking for consensus, we have to see if there are objections to the > proposal, and if those objections are justified - see the beginning of > section 2 of RIPE-500: 'In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions > for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must > be justified with supporting arguments'. This is explicitly repeated in > section 2.4. > > In 2011-02, we have the case of "rough consensus with objections": > > We have a number of people who spoke up in favour of the proposal, both > during the discussion/review phases and during Last Call. A few persons > had serious doubts about routing table growth and about PI in general, but > still spoke in favour of the proposal, or abstained. > > One person opposes the proposal, based on worries about highly accelerated > and thus unsustainable routing table growth as a consequence of the > proposal. > > Given that some of the other RIRs already have less restrictive IPv6 PI > policies, the available numbers on their PI assignments and the routes > seen in the global IPv6 BGP table do not back this assumption. Neither > does the data from the global IPv4 BGP table, where the RIPE region has > always had a very relaxed PI policy. > > So the AP WG chairs have decided (after long discussion) that we do > have rough consensus on this policy proposal, and the remaining > objections will be ignored. Sander Steffann announced this at the > APWG meeting - and one member of the WG spoke up at the microphone > and disagreed with our conclusion. > > So we spent some more weeks discussing and thinking about this, and > this is what we do now: > > - the WG chairs declare consensus > > - but the *working group* has the last word on any policy decision, > so we call for two weeks of "Last Call" on this decision > > > Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and > it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc. > now - we've heard all arguments. What we need to decide now is whether > the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the > proposal, or not. > > If you, the WG, decides that we do not have consensus, the policy proposal > goes back to "discussion phase", and the proposer will need to work with > those people that spoke up against the proposal to integrate their ideas, > and come up with a new version of the policy proposal that might then > reach consensus. > > sincerly yours, > > Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs > > -- > 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]