[address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:44:11AM +0000, Remco Van Mook wrote:
> >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.
> 
> I fail to see how my comment from June 29th, quoted below, is part of your
> summary.
> 
> Quote:
> While I do sympathise with the
> rationale behind the proposal, doing it this way strikes me as having an
> awful lot of (unintended?) side effects. I personally don't have a better
> suggestion to achieve resolution of the problem that this proposal aims to
> fix, but at the same time I'm unconvinced that everybody's who's been
> supporting the proposal has been doing so for the problem this policy aims
> to fix, and not one of its (again, unintended?) side effects.
> End quote.

I took that as an abstention.  You voice doubts on the proposal and 
some doubts about the motivation of other supporters, while stating 
some support for the rationale - but I can't read a clear "I support the 
proposal" or "I do not support the proposal" here.


> If we're going to have a meta-discussion about whether consensus has been
> reached, I think we should be clear on what the proposal intends to fix
> first. 

Now that would have been a nice statement in "Last Call" - where you 
didn't say anything, so we didn't see any opposition from you when 
trying to assess consensus.

Now we're *past* the "Concluding Phase" from the PDP, and the only 
relevant question now is "has the PDP process been correctly followed, 
and (rough) consensus been achieved, or not".

It's not unusual for people to voice somewhat-unspecific doubts about
a proposal in one of the earlier phases of the PDP, but still go forward
with the proposal, especially if they (as you added) have no better
suggestions.  Sometimes they clearly voice this (as Mikael did),
sometimes we have to decide by "there is no sustained opposition in
Last Call" that, well, there is no sustained opposition.


But anyway - as I said: this has been a difficult one.  If you think 
your concerns haven't been given enough weight, and we haven't achieved
"rough consensus" as per the PDP, please say so.

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 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20111212/d8a2819c/attachment.sig>