<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Again you are correct. The PDP meeting should really only be used
for formal presentations and to perhaps clarify anything -
although even that could be done in the mailing list. The meeting
can also perhaps be used to provide a summary of discussions on
the mailing list. The decision really should not have to happen in
the meeting - it should almost be a foregone conclusion whether a
particular policy is going to go to "final call" or not.<br>
<br>
I wonder if we as a community will ever have the possibility of a
policy going from inception to passing without it ever having to
wait for (or going to) a meeting. That should be possible.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2019/06/23 13:30, JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9B4C3947-C0F8-46A3-9B57-5C0B17FD5729@consulintel.es">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Cuerpo en alfa";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Texto sin formato Car";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.TextosinformatoCar
{mso-style-name:"Texto sin formato Car";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Texto sin formato";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:2010331129;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1433106864 1653639954 67764249 67764251 67764239 67764249 67764251 67764239 67764249 67764251;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"\(%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="ES-TRAD">Hi all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I'm opening a new
thread, and is not an easy one and could be very
contentious, but I think is urgently needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I mention it briefly in
my previous email, but it was a long one, so I want to make
sure that we concentrate in this part.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Our PDP is meant for
contributing in the mailing list for discussions and in the
meeting. However, formally, the decision is taken in the
meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Everybody that comes to
the meetings is *<b>able</b>* to participate in the mailing
list as well, so unless something "new" is discovered about
a policy proposal, should we consider for the consensus that
comments against a policy proposal that were not raised
previously in the list, should not "take over" the gauge of
the level of consensus support? *<b>There are no excuses</b>*
to be in the meeting and raise something if you have already
been in the mailing list and not raised it before.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Sometimes, an issue
raised in the list, may be too contentious to be resolved
there, and that’s why we need meetings, and not just the
“formal” policy day, but also chats in the breaks, etc. This
the way we resolve issues in the IETF, where the definition
of rough consensus was developed, and this is the one we use
in the RIRs. RFC7282 and for short, read kind of summary of
it below (1) my signature.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Second part of this, and
actually a *<b>much stronger point</b>*:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Some folks, which are in
the list, which are *<b>actual</b>* authors of other policy
proposals, didn’t brought their inputs in the list, they
have actually brought them in the meeting, just for the *<b>insane
sake of overthrow this proposal</b>* and exclusively for
their own interest.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">My view is that those
authors, as I’m not supporting their own policy proposals,
believe that I’m against them “personally”, it seems to me
they don’t understand that the PDP is not about “your
interest” but the “community interest”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If those authors of
other policy proposals are really looking for the *<b>well
of the community</b>*, they *<b>MUST</b>* participate in
the list *<b>not only</b>* to defend their own policy
proposals, but also to improve the ones from other authors
(as I do).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If they provid those
inputs in the list in advance to the meeting, then we could
have made a new version in time for resolving their issues
and reaching consensus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If someone supports a
policy proposal, *<b>ideally, they should explicitly say it
in the list</b>*, so the co-chairs have a broader view of
the real community support.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If someone doesn’t
support a policy proposal, *<b>MUST say it in the list</b>*
so it can be discussed and amended if necessary way ahead of
the meeting, so we can reach consensus, because the meeting
time is precious, and proposals are submitted to improve our
system and this means if we believe something is needed is
much better reach consensus in 1 year than in 2. Obvious
right?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">How come, as I learnt in
the Dakar meeting (from one of the authors of a policy
proposal under discussion who told me in person), can
authors not read the mailing list and respond to, not only
their own policy proposal inputs, but also contribute to
others?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Note that I explicitly
don’t want to mention specific names, because, again, this
is not about individuals, but about the community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, should we have a
rule, or at least co-chairs consider, that people
contributing in the meeting, should have already contributed
in the list, unless it is a new issue *<b>not</b>*
discovered before?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Again, this is not a
fight among different sets of policy proposals authors, but
it looks like when some of them, don’t do comments in the
list, and wait till the meeting for killing consensus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Opinions?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Jordi<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">@jordipalet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">(1) Definition of
‘Consensus’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Achieving ‘consensus’
does not mean that proposals are voted for and against, nor
that the number of ‘yes's’, ‘no's’ and ‘abstentions’ – or
even participants – are counted, but that the proposal has
been discussed not only by its author(s) but also by other
members of the community, regardless of their number, and
that, after a period of discussion, all critical technical
objections have been resolved.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">In general, this
might coincide with a majority of members of the community
in favor of the proposal, and with those who are against the
proposal basing their objections on technical reasons as
opposed to ‘subjective’ reasons. In other words, low
participation or participants who disagree for reasons that
are not openly explained should not be considered a lack of
consensus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Objections should not
be measured by their number, but instead by their nature and
quality within the context of a given proposal. For example,
a member of the community whose opinion is against a
proposal might receive many ‘emails’ (virtual or real) in
their support, yet the chairs might consider that the
opinion has already been addressed and technically refuted
during the debate; in this case, the chairs would ignore
those expressions of support against the proposal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">For information
purposes, the definition of ‘consensus’ used by the RIRs and
the IETF is actually that of ‘rough consensus’, which allows
better clarifying the goal in this context, given that
‘consensus’ (Latin for agreement) might be interpreted as
‘agreed by all’ (unanimity). More specifically, RFC7282,
explains that “Rough consensus is achieved when all issues
are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Consequently, in this
document ‘consensus’ should be interpreted as ‘rough
consensus’.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">As an ‘abridged’
definition for the remainder of the document, a proposal is
considered to have reached consensus when it is supported by
meaningful opinions, after broad discussion, and when there
are no irrefutable technical objections.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Definition of Last
call<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">The purpose of the
‘last call’ is to provide the community with a brief and
final opportunity to comment on the proposal, especially to
those who didn’t do so earlier. Consequently, during this
period editorial comments may be submitted and,
exceptionally, objections if any aspect is discovered that
was not considered in the discussion prior to determining
consensus. Any new objections must also be substantiated and
must therefore not be based on opinions lacking a technical
justification.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<br>
**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.theipv6company.com" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za" moz-do-not-send="true">mje@posix.co.za</a> Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ftth.posix.co.za" moz-do-not-send="true">https://ftth.posix.co.za</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>