[rpd] The need to review the existing soft landing policy (was Re: Two more petitioners)

[Omo Oaiya]

Sander,

This discussion is increasingly moot but I thought I'd chip in anyway
because I found the RIPE-NCC proposal interesting for obvious reasons and
followed it closely.  I recall someone also posted the announcement on this
list when it was proposed.

The only similarity for me was that it made almost the same arguments as
SL-BIS, a year after it was proposed in AfriNIC.  One might even think it
was inspired by discussions here.

2 main differences in my mind:

- the significant regional differences (internet penetration, more even
distribution of resources in the RIPE region and the amount of IPv4 left in
RIPE-NCC[1] 5 years after projected runout amongst others)

- unlike the corresponding RIPE proposal, SL-BIS has seen many iterations
in AfriNIC as pointed out and this is the second time it has reached last
call, each time with considerable community input, in modifications and
supplied text.  Even now, the objections do not reflect the majority view
in my opinion and fails to appreciate the intent and spirit behind the
allocation of the last /8.

Your portrayal does not reflect these realities and seems to ignore the
fact that you need consensus to get to last call, unlike the RIPE-NCC
proposal that didn't make the first meeting.

My 0.02
Omo

1 - https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv
6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph


On 19 Dec 2017 6:07 p.m., "Sander Steffann" <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

Hi Alain,

> We have gone a long way with the discussions about the existing
softlanding policy and the merits of the various proposals to amend it. The
version of SL-BIS  which went to last call is a merger of two of them.

Yes, and despite that there doesn't seem to be consensus that it is better
than the existing soft landing policy. In a consensus-based policy
development process there is a built-in bias against change: change only
happens when there is consensus on a policy proposal. If there is no such
consensus then the default is to keep the existing policy.

There is nothing wrong with this. I have seen many proposals that at first
seem to be a great idea, but later in the process problems are identified
that cannot be solved. At that point the best thing to do is to withdraw
the proposal.

I encountered something similar in my own region. We had a policy proposal
to slow down our version of the soft landing proposal:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-03. I personally
was very much in favour of this, but discussion on the mailing list showed
that the opinions were strongly divided on this. In the end the authors
together with the working group chairs decided to withdraw the proposal
because finding consensus would very likely be impossible, and keeping the
proposal going would most likely be a waste of everybody's time.

There is no shame in not finding consensus on a policy proposal. It just
shows that the existing policy has more consensus (self-evident, because it
did get through the PDP successfully) than the proposed changes. Sometimes
it is very frustrating because we feel very strongly about a proposal, but
in the end we have to respect what the community as a whole wants.

Cheers,
Sander


_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171219/91bbe4c3/attachment.html>