+1 On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 11:01 PM Sergey Myasoedov via anti-abuse-wg < anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

Dear group members from Portugal stated your support for 2019-03,

Can you please provide some more arguments than your humble "+1" statement? This is a working group, not a voting.

Please.

-- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov

On 29 Mar 2019, at 18:33, Vitor Leitao <vitor.m.leitao@gmail.com> wrote:

I would like to manifest my support to the proposal 2019-03.

Rgds,

Vitor Leitao

Hi, On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 09:17:20AM +0000, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote:

Does the PDP specify that expressing support needs to include any specific reason for said support?

This is a question that we have in AP regularily. My stance as AP WG chair is that it is not required - if a comment is basically a "I can support <proposal> as it is written, I see the need to do something, and I agree with <proposal> as the method to do so", a plain "I support <proposal>" conveys the same message. *OTOH*, if there is a heated discussion with strong counterarguments, and there is no clear consensus emerging, it certainly helps the chairs and the discussion if the "+1" voices showing up later express why they think that "the proposal is good as it stands" while others are so strongly disagreeing with that. (And technically, we do not need to reach consensus in discussion phase - there *should* be "some support from the community" and no "obvious killer argument" opposing the proposal, but consensus only needs to be reached at the end of the review phase) So - up to the proposers and chairs to decide whether to move on, and it certainly *helps* these to judge arguments if arguments are brought forward... Gert Doering -- speaking from experience as AP chair, not positioned to decide on an anti-abuse policy proposal -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Thank you, yes, we did before. 😊 If what I wrote on the 25th of March is unclear, please let me know. To repeat, messages of support are useful and indicative, but they do not carry an argument. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Töma Gavrichenkov Sent: Saturday 30 March 2019 10:08 To: Carlos Friaças <cfriacas@fccn.pt> Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Proposal 2019-03 BGP Hijacking On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 10:23 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>> wrote: Do supporters need to specify which parts of the proposal's text are more meaningful for them? Perhaps one of the Chairs can shed some light. They in fact have done that before. To quote: ---- start ---- From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>> Date: Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation) [..] To clarify, the discussion on this proposal is a discussion, not a vote. When judging consensus the Co-Chairs will look at the points made during the discussion, not count the +1s. Of course it is useful to get a feeling for general agreement, so simple statements of support or dissent are very useful, but they are not the core of the thing. ---- end ---- -- Töma

Hi Sergey, I think this is a completely different discussion and up to the chairs the PDP decision process, as we all know. However, I want to point out, that from my perspective, supporting voices are perfectly valid, regardless of pointing out their motivations or not. This is my take on consensus. On the other way around, non-supporting ones need to be motivated. I agree that if I’m a proposal author (not speaking now about this one), and have more friends that somebody opposing and I convince all my friends to support it, is not fair. However, if those supporting voices aren’t “friends”, but colleagues working in the same area of work, and suffering the same problems as myself, it is fine asking them to support it. I will love that all the policy proposals have this kind of support (or non-support), it makes easy for authors to improve the proposals, and I guess, to chairs to decide (even if it means extra work to track all the discussions). Regards, Jordi El 29/3/19 23:01, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Sergey Myasoedov via anti-abuse-wg" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> escribió: Dear group members from Portugal stated your support for 2019-03, Can you please provide some more arguments than your humble "+1" statement? This is a working group, not a voting. Please. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov On 29 Mar 2019, at 18:33, Vitor Leitao <vitor.m.leitao@gmail.com> wrote: I would like to manifest my support to the proposal 2019-03. Rgds, Vitor Leitao ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.