[ncc-services-wg] comments on proposal 2012-07

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 01:18:03PM +0100, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> I think your view on Consensus are a bit of with what alot of us other
> think, please go read
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-on-consensus/
> 
> Or a shorter answer, it's not about the number, it is about getting
> people to agree it is a doable solution even when they don't agree on
> all. Their biggest objections need to be addressed, and discussed.

I think Sander did that: address and discuss the objection Nick raised.

From what I saw in the discussion, the main thing seems to be that Nick
is assuming most LRHs are free-riders, while the authors of the proposal
assume that there is interest among the LRHs to strengthen their ties to
the NCC and pay a reasonable fee for that, except for a small subset who
would not do that.

We can't know who is right - without asking "most" of the LRHs, which I
consider unreasonable - so in the end the chairs will have to decide
whether they share the view that this is a too high risk, or whether
they see it as one loud voice sticking to unreasonable objection - and
that is fully in line with the draft you reference :-)

Gert Doering
        -- just a LIR
-- 
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: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20131103/0fb9a253/attachment.sig>