AW: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
Michael, sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. Maybe I should apply for a job?
If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no difference.
I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat quite arrogant by that. RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop soonest possible. We're in internet business - and rely on phys presence. That's ridicilous. Btw: No need to hint for proxy votes - who's trusting opponents? And what are proxy votes good for when not having heard or seen the discussion in before? Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon@versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von michael.dillon@bt.com Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 13:42 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
No, it's not a fair or open way to do that. [What about those who can't physically get to the meeting? Web/phone participation doesn't count. Who gets to vote?]
If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no difference.
It's also incompatible with the current Policy Development Process which is based on list-driven, bottom-up consensus.
The extraordinary general meeting would not be about changing policy, it would be about an activity plan to divide up the remaining inventory of IPv4 addresses between the applicants who have requested a piece of the final /8.
Why do we need to decide this today, when there is little motivation to reach a decision and not enough information available to make a decision. For instance we do not know what will be the market penetration of IPv6 at the point of IANA runout.
IMO this is another reason for not even trying to make a decision. The current policy isn't broken and doesn't need fixing.
This is also a reasonable approach, i.e. I have suggested option c) but your suggestion of option d) is also worthy of consideration.
I'm glad we agree about something Michael. :-)
Perhaps we agree that simply re-evaluating options a) and b) is not the best way to proceed?
--Michael Dillon
sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time.
There are dozens of cost optimization guys around, but the cost of one RIPE extraordinary general meeting doesn't worry us because we are putting a lot of effort into IPv6 trials and we can see light at the end of the tunnel. Don't ever forget that soon nobody will really NEED IPv4 addresses any more because IPv6 is a viable alternative. If your company isn't doing internal trials of IPv6 with selected customers, then yes, you should probably start looking for another job.
If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no difference.
I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat quite arrogant by that.
RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop soonest possible.
Please do not criticise my proposal because you disagree with how RIPE currently functions. If you have a criticism with how RIPE members vote, please take it to the appropriate venue. If RIPE does begin to allow remote participation and voting in a general meeting, that doesn't change my proposal in any way.
We're in internet business - and rely on phys presence. That's ridicilous.
It's also ridiculous that we have so little IPv6 deployment that we have to argue over how to distribute the last few crumbs of IPv4 addressing. Why does the Internet still rely on this ancient protocol over 10 years after IPv6 was introduced? So, how do you propose to distribute the final /8 fairly? --Michael Dillon
Please do not criticise my proposal because you disagree with how RIPE currently functions. If you have a criticism with how RIPE members vote, please take it to the appropriate venue. If RIPE does begin to allow remote participation and voting in a general meeting, that doesn't change my proposal in any way.
It has been pointed out several times in this thread that RIPE (NCC) general meetings have nothing to do with policy and that RIPE meetings (or WG meetings) do not vote. So discussions of remote voting, or voting in general, have no place here. Nigel
* michael.dillon@bt.com [Tue 25 Aug 2009, 16:36 CEST]:
Don't ever forget that soon nobody will really NEED IPv4 addresses any more because IPv6 is a viable alternative.
About every other mail I read from you gives me a near-incontrollable impulse to reply with just the following: lolwut -- Niels.
participants (4)
-
Marcus.Gerdon -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
niels=apwg＠bakker.net -
Nigel Titley