[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[Komi Elitcha]

Good day Owen,
Please see few comments below.

2018-05-01 23:31 GMT+00:00 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>:

>
>
> > On Apr 28, 2018, at 14:27, Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The argument and discussion on this policy will continue to go back and
> forth, as i see a dangerous trend of members standing at very sharp and
> deep divides. The proponents and those opposed to the policy are not ready
> to shift grounds, in this regard can we answer the following:
> >
> > 1. Is there in any form, an agreement that the community needs a policy
> of this nature?
>
> The policy currently on the books is less objectionable than the current
> proposal. While many of us who oppose this proposal would like to see it
> repealed, I believe most of us can live with the status quo.
>

​It is obvious that if you opposed the current  policy on the books, you
will oppose SL-bis.
SL policy was adoption was tedious as the revision history  can tell. But
it was a time where peoole understood the concept and were able to work out
a concensual policy from a proposal.
Proponents of SL-BIS also will live with the status  quo as not too
different from the original SL-BIS  proposa, but not with the the competing
proposal you tend to favour.


>
> I personally do not believe such a policy serves the community at this
> time, so making it even worse is counter-productive.
>

​We have agreed to disagree on this.​

>
> > 2. If we agree that the policy is required, then what are the issues?
>
> I think we don’t agree such a policy is required.
>
> > 3. If the policy is not required, then it should just be buried  and we
> make progress on more productive issues.
>
> I do not think we have consensus on this matter. Many of us believe this
> policy is unnecessary and even harmful. Others believe this policy is
> needed.
>

​This was expected  and lot of discussions have happened to merge and
accomodate various views. Only those  personal oppositions from competing
proposals  and denial of acceptance of the history  behind the last /8 we
got from the global soft landing policy and which is subject of  the Soft
landing policy  being updated  have not been addressed.
​

>
> >
> > However if we answer is Yes to No. 1. Then i will suggest that we do a
> clause by clause discussion and come to some consensus, any clause agreed
> upon will form part of the policy. Though tedious but that way, we can
> identify the "offensive" clause(s) and agree or discard it.
>
> The answer to 1 and 3 (really the same question in reverse) varies
> depending on who you ask. There is the rub.
>

​The tedious method was proposed by cochairs  and followed  by those who
accepted it.
​

>
> >
> > But if we think the policy is not required, just bury it and move on.
>
> While I’d like to see us do so, unlike my opponents, I do recognize that
> they are entitled to sustain their support just as much as our sustained
> objections remain valid.
>

​The cochairs report on the proposal is avalaible. The Appeal Committee has
failed  to point out these objections  not addressed which you are
referring to. We have not made any  progress since.
​

>
> >
> > It is important we quickly turn our attention to policies that will fast
> track the deployment of IPV6, as we are overstretching the discussion on
> IPV4.
>
> The good news is that v4 freepool policies probably won’t matter much
> after Dakar or possibly one more meeting after that. There’s a reason the
> proponents are in a rush and the opponents are willing to run out the
> clock.
>

​Anyone on rush here?  This proposal has been following the normal track .
Is this just another example of your biased judgments of things?
​

>
> Fortunately for the community, absent actual rough consensus, the process
> favors the status quo over ill-advised changes to policy over the
> objections of even a minority of the community.
>

​I am curious about your  definition of minority of the community and
wonder if  we are  still talking about substantial  objections and rough
consensus
​

>
> Owen
>
> ​I hope this helps.​


-- 
--KE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180506/b47aacf0/attachment.html>