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

Hello Gert,

may I quote myself?

fromTurchanyi Geza turchanyi.geza at gmail.com toaddress-policy-wg at ripe.net
ccPeter Koch <pk at denic.de>,
Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
dateSat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:33 AMsubjectRe: [address-policy-wg] status of
2011-02mailed-bygmail.com
hide details 12/10/11

Hello,

I am glad to see that I am not alone.

However, I am still worried that several people voted for a free beer.

OK, free beer is nice if somebody is ready to pay it ;-(), but this case is
a different one.

The problem is that the limits of the technology can not be changed by
voting and concensus declaration.

AND the whole policy addresses global issues. The policy proposal was a
very bad message for other regions.

Liberty to pollut (in this case: the global routing table) is not a liberty
for me.

Thanks,

Géza



On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

> > I would certainly hope that these objections will not be ignored
> > but considered addressed.
>
> the concerns (which careful reading of the thread would show that i
> shared with geza) were not 'addressed' in the sense of overcome.



> randy
>
>

These were very clear messages, I think.

Thanks,

Géza




On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 04:52:41PM +0100, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
> > I definitely declared that I still think that no concensus was reached.
>
> Please re-read the mails you have sent.
>
> We needed something very clear, like "no, we do not have consensus" or
> "yes, this is good enough for (rough) consensus" here.
>
> You made very clear that you do not like the proposal, but that does not
> automatically make it a statement of non-consensus - there was one e-mail
> which very clearly stated:
>
>  "I don't like the policy as I think its a bad idea [...], but [...] so it
>   seems that we are in fact at a consensus *but* [...]"
>
> so "not liking the proposal but still thinking the WG has reached rough
> consensus on it" is quite possible.
>
> Since your mails didn't contain clear statements of consensus or not,
> they have not been counted as either.
>
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120105/d938f94c/attachment.html>