<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div>Sander,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>2 main differences in my mind:</div><div><br></div><div>- 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)</div><div><br></div><div>- 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.<br><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>My 0.02</div><div>Omo</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto">1 - <a href="https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/publicati<wbr>ons/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv<wbr>6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-availab<wbr>le-pool-graph</a></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 19 Dec 2017 6:07 p.m., "Sander Steffann" <<a href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl" target="_blank">sander@steffann.nl</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail-m_-5787511240272686568m_-2717196887959088731m_-8749424240553752134gmail-m_-2736051291208488242quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Alain,<br>
<div class="gmail-m_-5787511240272686568m_-2717196887959088731m_-8749424240553752134gmail-m_-2736051291208488242quoted-text"><br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
</div>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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I encountered something similar in my own region. We had a policy proposal to slow down our version of the soft landing proposal: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-03" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participa<wbr>te/policies/proposals/2017-03</a>. 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Sander<br>
<br>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mail<wbr>man/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</div>