[address-policy-wg] consensus and 2011-02
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] consensus and 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] consensus and 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Sat Dec 10 09:13:47 CET 2011
Hi Jim, I also think that your argument: 'one person can not block' is valid. However, I am not alone. I remember people from Norvege, Germany, Ukraine, etc, sharing the concerns or even expressing better than I did. Perhaps also you! Fredy Kuenzler - How More Specifics increase your transit bill (and ways to avoid it)this was a nice talk on Tuesday's plenary, explaining how and why to keep the routing table simpler and smaller - in a little bit different context. Unfortunately very few "PI+1 activists" attended.... Is the old concensus that we should listen to the others still valid? You do, I know, but what about these "PI+1 activists"? Best, Géza On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote: > On 9 Dec 2011, at 14:42, Peter Koch wrote: > > If it's all about 'one person cannot block' then tell me, how many >> would it need? >> > > The same number as it needs in the dnsop WG you chair at IETF Peter. :-) > > We both know this is not decided by absolute numbers Peter. The Chair(s) > of the relevant WG exercise their best judgement on the position of the WG > as a whole. [That's why they get the big bucks. :-)] If they believe > there's consensus in the WG, that's the decision. They could decide that > one lone voice knows better than the rest of the WG => further discussion > or refinement of the proposal is needed. That will depend on the specific > circumstances and the nature of that (isolated?) objection. > > Note too that the earlier discussion was sparked by the suggestion that > there could be no consensus on 2011-02 unless Geza said this was OK. We > both know that this is not how RIPE's consensus decision-making process > works. > > You might recall how the DNS WG arrived at a consensus response to the DoC > proposal for getting the DNS root signed a few years ago and who made the > judgement on whether a consensus had been reached. Some people were unhappy > or uncomfortable with aspects of that response yet it still managed to > emerge as a consensus view of the WG. And ultimately of the RIPE community. > > > > (BTW, thsi is not a RIPE matter, however, a global one) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20111210/b3626f53/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] consensus and 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] consensus and 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]