Hi Sander, My reading of PDP 2.4 is not that we can’t make changes (which I believe are in the same direction of the proposal, look for my questions below, so no substantial changes, only making sure that we have in the text what we want).
My reason to re-raise those now, is because they become evident when you compare the proposed 2.6 change with the policy proposal arguments AND specially the impact analysis, contradictions which for some reason, I didn’t discover before (so disagree with you, those points aren’t the same I raised before, may be similar, but the reason now is the contradictory text), and this seems to be in the scope of PDP 2.4. The author of the proposal and the NCC could confirm their intent: 1) Is the proposal looking for disallowing a /64 ? If so, then the impact analysis is broken and NCC is looking to implement something different than what the proposal is asking for. 2) The proposal clearly is NOT intended for “permanent” broadband services, but his is NOT stated in the proposed text change. I doubt that the NCC can enforce a policy that don’t have that stated in the policy text. Can the NCC confirm that? 3) I also believe that the policy isn’t pretending to be used in data centers. Can this be clarified? Regarding a possible appeal. The procedure talks about “unless there are exceptional extenuating circumstances”. I think it is the case for an impact analysis contradicting the proposal. Is up the chairs to decide that, of course and I understand that you may need to wait until the end of the last call to decide on that (this is the reason why I understand that the appeal doesn’t make sense now, unless you have already taken a decision). If you believe is not the case, then, please let me know how to send the appeal to the “Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC)”, I guess there is a mailing list for that? Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Sander Steffann <[email protected]> Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 15:58 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email protected]> CC: <[email protected]> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) Hi Jordi, > The point is not only the PDP, as I believe we are still on time to correct the policy proposal, which I think is broken and contradicting itself. > > See my last email on the details, and a proposed text to resolve it, which according to the PDP, we can still apply I think We don't make any substantial changes in/after last call. Any "final changes" would be typo's. clearing up language etc. This is not the time to make changes to the core of the policy proposal. And besides: you're not coming up with new arguments. These are the same arguments that you have voiced before. You have been heard in previous phases of the PDP, we seriously considered their merit, extended the review phase (and please stop complaining about not making any textual changes for the extended review phase, as I explained that is the discretion of the working group chairs) to see if there was support for your approach, and reached the conclusion that there wasn't. Your ideas have been heard and seriously considered, but despite that we determined that there is rough consensus to continue with the current version and leave the changes you want for a future policy proposal. In the language of the RFC: we have addressed your objections, but not accommodated them. > , without the need to wait for the concluding phase and then the appeal. No need to wait. You can appeal the decision to declare consensus right now if you think our judgement was wrong. Feel free to do so. I'm confident we made the right decision, but we're human so if you think we made a mistake then let's ask the Working Group Chairs Collective what they decide. As far as I'm concerned reviewing the policy proposal is done. We have rough consensus on the content and have moved to last call. If new objections come up with supporting arguments and they can't be addressed then we will declare lack of consensus at the end of last call. Raising the same objections as before is not going to block consensus in this phase: we already consider those objections addressed. Cheers, Sander ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company 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.
