[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

Hi,

I'm sorry, but from this reply I understand two things:
1) if somebody speaks up for the first time, that someone's opinion values less than that of somebody that spoje up before.
2) if somebody speaks up well within the set timeline, but on the very last day, it's suspicious (to say it mildly).

I agree that any -1s especially (preferably also +1s) should be argumented, but those arguments should not be thrown out simply because "it's the last day" or because "you never spoke here before", which is was has been done here by some people.

Also, "to deal with the concerns" is pretty vague, especially in establishing when the concern has been dealt with. A reply from someone expressing disagreement with a concern does not mean the concern was dealt with.

My concern regarding the RIPE NCC impact analysis were (from my understanding) it is said that this policy will not address the actual hoarding problem was not even slightly dealt with, just an example.

If this is a private group were only certain RIPE members are allowed to raise concerns and have them dealt with, please let me know and I will not post anymore. But it is my understanding that RIPE is a community in which each member has EXACTLY the same rights and obligations as another member (even when there were different LIR categories, rights and obligations were the same, regardless if the category). 

I strongly feel that any kind of policy change (resource related or not) that would impact members directly should be voted upon - electronically, without the need of a RIPE meeting. Of course prior to voting all discussions should take place on mailing lists. The infrastructure is already setup. We are all ISPs and/or internet related businesses, I think we can all find 5 mins online in a 24h period to vote...

Matei Storch
Profisol Telecom
0728.555.004

> On 9 iun. 2015, at 23:47, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:35:11PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
>> So I think plain "+1" should not be also considered valuable.
> 
> Oh, it is (we had this discussion before) - at least for people that
> I know have been around before, it signals "I agree with the arguments
> the propers bring up why this is a useful way forward".
> 
> If all of a sudden 50 people that have never spoken up before would
> show up and try to game a discussion by just posting "+1", I wouldn't
> consider this an overly strong argument either - right.  This is part of 
> the WG chair's job when judging consensus.
> 
> 
> Of course, part of "*rough* consensus" is that objections *have been 
> addressed* - so if someone posts a "-1" without specifics, it is impossible
> to address these not-voiced objections, and putting too much weight on
> such a mail would make it very easy to kill every single policy proposal
> (and so we don't).
> 
> There is no need to address supporting arguments, so indeed, the process
> is fairly asymmetric here.
> 
> Of course a supporting voice that actually explains why the poster thinks
> this is a good way forward, with arguments that are not in the proposal
> itself, is even stronger - so thanks to Tore for making a good point.
> 
> 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