[address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:52:14PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote:
> Oh please, stop that. I just only said that 5 or 6 ppl is not 
> consensous. If you all wish, I did the math. 7 (counting you) of 3000 is 
> 0.23% and the list have more than 3k subscribers. Im not going that way 
> because if we start with that, not a single proposal would be accepted.

You'll *have* to go that way, as this is the way RIPE policy making works.

Only actual statements are evaluated, and if all you get is 7 people
disagreeing with the idea, it does not matter if 100, 3000, or 5 million
other people do not say anything about it.

If you look at the archives, you'll see that it's quite different for
different proposals - some ideas get much/only positive feedback right
away (and in that case, 5 people telling us "yeah, go for it!" is also
clear enough, as 2995 others do not find it necessary to say "I'm against
it! stop!"), other ideas cause long discussions, eventually leading to
the opponents being convinced - and yet other proposals come up, get
strong headwind, and are withdrawn because it's clear that there is not
enough support.

This is not voting, this is "rough consensus", similar to RFC7282.

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140703/2e0c15a4/attachment.sig>