Thanks Malcolm, I think this is a perfect definition of consensus and it shows that "more voices" not necessarily means "consensus".
However, I really think, regardless if there are or not objections, consensus can't be achieved on "non-sense" or "unrealistic" proposals which can't be enforced. Part of the problem is because it looks like instead of giving priority to the "policy text", we also obey the policy proposal, the IA, and so, which are not in the "policy manual". I'm going to talk about this in a new thread to avoid mixing things with this concrete policy proposal. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Malcolm Hutty <[email protected]> Fecha: martes, 16 de enero de 2018, 12:11 Para: Jim Reid <[email protected]>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email protected]> CC: <[email protected]> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean On 16/01/2018 10:02, Jim Reid wrote: > And yes, in theory it's possible for a charlatan to "stack the deck" by having their (ficticious) friends express support for a proposal. Actually, if "rough consensus" is applied properly (and you could criticise what I'm about to say by saying is overly theoretical), I don't think stacking the audience with supporters does achieve rough consensus. Rough consensus should never be about counting noses. That's because I don't think that "rough consensus" is primarily about how many supporters a proposal has, I think it's about primarily about the nature and quality of the objection. If there are no objections, that's unanimous approval, which is a subset of rough consensus. If there are objections, the number of objections isn't a first order concern (although that can be a signal of something else). If the objections are recognised as being serious, valid concerns that haven't been properly addressed, then the Chairs should find that "rough consensus" has not yet been achieved. And it shouldn't really matter how few people object, except insofar as a signal (if nobody has been persuaded, why is that? Perhaps this signals an underlying flaw in the objection, that allows it to be legitimately discarded). If the only objections are invalid (e.g. out of scope) or have been properly addressed, then it is possible to find a rough consensus notwithstanding that some (or even many) people still have (invalid) objections or aren't willing to accept that their point has been dealt with. In the present case, Sander wrote: > Short summary: > - a problem was discovered in the IPv6 policy > - we see consensus that this policy proposal solves that problem > - we recognise that you would like an even better solution > - and we'll happily work with you to achieve that! > - but because this proposal solves the original problem we don't want to delay it To me, that reads as an admirably clear and succinct explanation in the category "we've dealt with your objection, now we're moving on". Of course, what constitutes an "invalid" objection is hard to describe and extremely difficult to define completely, perhaps not even possible. But I'm sure we can all think of examples. Here's one: "I don't think this policy should be approved because RIPE has no legitimate authority to make policy; that is the purview of governments" would, IMO, be an invalid objection, on the grounds that the central question it poses (does RIPE has legitimate policy-making authority?) is out of scope for a discussion about whether X should be approved (possibly on other, more complicated grounds too). If someone packed the floor / mailing list, with hundreds of people who agreed with that proposition, I think the proper course of action for a APWG Chair would be to ignore all of them. There's a time and a place for that kind of discussion. During a PDP is not it. This does invest an awful lot of responsibility in the WG Chairs (or, for matters considered by the community as a whole, the RIPE Chair), to discern and discriminate between a valid of objection and an invalid one. It is requires a lot of rather subjective judgement, not on the matter at hand, but on the nature of the discussion and our community and its purpose and values and what we consider a legitimate frame of discussion. While I happen to think that having a conversation that attempts to broaden a common understanding of the kinds of things that Chairs ought to consider invalid objections would be beneficial, not least for the WG Chairs and especially future Chairs, this can only be a discussion of principles and norms, it can never be turned into a rigid set of rules. This model will always rest heavily on the judgment of the Chairs. I'm OK with that. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA ********************************************** 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.
