Hi, On Sat, 9 May 2020, Nick Hilliard wrote:

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 09/05/2020 15:23:

...

Having one might at least lay this discussion to rest once and for all. I?ve seen variants of it for several years now.

But imagine if someone contacted a bunch of their colleagues and said: "look, there's this policy proposal going on in RIPE AAWG and it would be really great if you could just join up on the mailing list and add in a +1, thanks!"

Therein lies the problem - or at least one of the problems - with voting: it's wide open to manipulation.

Same goes for "it takes only 2 or 3 voices to break consensus". Even if arguments are somewhat "creative"...

There is another way of looking at this stalemate though: there's a policy development process and it produces outcomes. The outcomes may not be what some individuals on the WG want, but they are clear outcomes all the same.

In the sense that you're concerned that there's stalemate regarding some of these proposals, there isn't according to the PDP: no consensus is a legitimate and clear outcome, and when there is no consensus, the policy does not proceed.

The *proposal* does not proceed... the policy can already be in place, but remains unchanged.

So the issue is more: why are newer versions of this policy proposal returning repeatedly, and are they dealing adequately with the things that are blocking consensus?

It may, for those trying to accomodate "creative" arguments. For those which may be impacted by rules changing, certainly they won't see it as "adequate".

It's surprising to see a third iteration of this policy proposal - the first two versions didn't look like they were going anywhere. But resubmitting new versions is an issue between the WG chairs and the proposer.

That's the PDP. You can also try to change it, to prevent 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and so on versions, but i suspect consensus might not be easy to achieve :-) Regards, Carlos

Nick

Hi Nick, all, In many situations "rough consensus" was reached after many versions. Sometimes is a matter of finding the right balance, "the point in the middle" I was referring before. Even if it takes 10 versions instead of just 2. The issue is for the chairs, not an easy task, in the way to determine if objections are valid. Objections aren't just a matter of "taste", which is not valid, as very well described in RFC7282. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/5/20 23:36, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de nick@foobar.org> escribió: Hi Carlos, Carlos Friaças wrote on 09/05/2020 22:25: > On Sat, 9 May 2020, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 09/05/2020 15:23: >>> Having one might at least lay this discussion to rest once and for >>> all. I?ve seen variants of it for several years now. >> >> But imagine if someone contacted a bunch of their colleagues and said: >> "look, there's this policy proposal going on in RIPE AAWG and it would >> be really great if you could just join up on the mailing list and add >> in a +1, thanks!" >> >> Therein lies the problem - or at least one of the problems - with >> voting: it's wide open to manipulation. > > Same goes for "it takes only 2 or 3 voices to break consensus". > > Even if arguments are somewhat "creative"... no, and in fact this is the point of consensus. It depends on informed judgement and assessment, not a handful of dissenting voices, or people shouting, or votes or anything else. It's worth reading RFC 7282. There is a lot of wisdom in that document. >> In the sense that you're concerned that there's stalemate regarding >> some of these proposals, there isn't according to the PDP: no >> consensus is a legitimate and clear outcome, and when there is no >> consensus, the policy does not proceed. > > The *proposal* does not proceed... the policy can already be in place, > but remains unchanged. The existing reached consensus despite a number of dissenting voices :-) Personally, I think the policy does more harm than good, but it is what it is. I'm not going to put in a proposal to remove it because that probably wouldn't reach consensus and it would end up wasting working group time. Nick ********************************************** 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.