Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG meeting yesterday
Trying to catch up on mail...
On 2 mar 2007, at 10.03, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Regarding the Policy SIG yesterday and more specifically proposal
042, after
getting some more feedback from some other folks and also sleeping
on it,
I've to raise some concerns.
I know measuring consensus is not easy, but clearly consensus is not
unanimity and there was a clear superior number of people in favor
than
opposing the proposal.
Superior number is not the same as consensus AFAIK but I will leave
that to the chair to decide. That's why we have chairs :-)
Furthermore, there were no negative comments in the mail exploder
since it
was presented.
No, but there where quite a few in the meeting.
I will just repeat my own opinion here...
I am certainly not in favour of arbitrarily chosen numbers in
policies, and I have voiced concerns in other regions of the 200
rule. That said, the more we discuss this and the more I think of
this I really can't come up with a better rule or a better wording.
Also, really, really, really prefer the old tradition we had in
policy making - at least in the RIPE region - where people brought
their own experiences, presented them and made their case, and we
then formed policy. Changing policies just for the change is bad. We
want these policies to be stable over time and help the RIRs achieve
their two over-all goals "Aggregation and preservation". Just
removing the plans for 200 customers meets neither.
Last, in the room I asked how many of the people that voted for the
abolishment of the 200 rule had actually tried to make an application
for IPv6 space from APNIC and noone raised their hand. Now I do
realise that culture, language and my tendency to speak extremely
fast could/would have affected my straw poll. That said, I still
would like to see real life problems described so that we can better
understand what problem we are trying to fix. So APNIC members that
don't meet the current policy - PLEASE provide us with stories...
- kurtis -