<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Good day Owen,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Please see few comments below.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-05-01 23:31 GMT+00:00 Owen DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-"><br>
<br>
> On Apr 28, 2018, at 14:27, Daniel Yakmut <<a href="mailto:yakmutd@googlemail.com">yakmutd@googlemail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> 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:<br>
> <br>
> 1. Is there in any form, an agreement that the community needs a policy of this nature?<br>
<br>
</span>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 While many of us who oppose this proposal would like to see it repealed, I believe most of us can live with the status quo. <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">It is obvious that if you opposed the current policy on the books, you will oppose SL-bis.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I personally do not believe such a policy serves the community at this time, so making it even worse is counter-productive. <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">We have agreed to disagree on this.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span class="gmail-"><br>
> 2. If we agree that the policy is required, then what are the issues?<br>
<br>
</span>I think we don’t agree such a policy is required. <br>
<span class="gmail-"><br>
> 3. If the policy is not required, then it should just be buried and we make progress on more productive issues.<br>
<br>
</span>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. <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span class="gmail-"><br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
</span>The answer to 1 and 3 (really the same question in reverse) varies depending on who you ask. There is the rub. <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The tedious method was proposed by cochairs and followed by those who accepted it.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span class="gmail-"><br>
> <br>
> But if we think the policy is not required, just bury it and move on.<br>
<br>
</span>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. <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span class="gmail-"><br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
</span>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. <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Anyone on rush here? This proposal has been following the normal track . Is this just another example of your biased judgments of things? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
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. <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I am curious about your definition of minority of the community and wonder if we are still talking about substantial objections and rough consensus </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Owen<br>
</font></span><div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I hope this helps.</div> </div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#073763">--</font><font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#073763">KE</font></div><div><span style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><br><br></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>