On 19 October 2016 at 12:18, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
[..]
> What I have said is one of the concern that have to be addressd with an
> reasonable counter argument.

Thanks for the clarification.

> Chair's job is not collecting vote but make sure all concerns have been
> addressed reasonablely.

Thanks for telling me what my job is, I wouldn't have guessed otherwise.

Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness"
of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both
the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some
extent the person making a certain argument).

And if I cannot be sure what to make out of a statement, then I can either
ask for clarity, or just discard as "random noise".

Agian, voicing concern is not exact same thing as "opposition", I have a concern, if it can be addressed well with reasonable conter argument, I might support.

It's the very defination of the process “reaching consensus".

But again, I think it is not about the policy in discussion, we should stop here.

I agree with Nick just said, it does not fix the core problem: the large eonomical difference between

RIPE NCC member fees and market price for IPv4 will permenent exsists, Ramco said puting a sticker

"not for sale" to decrease its value, it might be true, but the gap in those two mgiht just be too big(and will be bigger in the future) to close.