Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Sander Steffann]

Hi,

> 1) Temporary always ? clearly not for point-to-point links, no-sense for data 
> centers?

Indeed, this is what I asked Marco.

> 2) Single address (/128) for a single device (so the device can't use 
> privacy? Utopia!), or do we allow if the devices get a single-prefix, it uses 
> multiple addresses out of that prefix (so we allow VMs in the device also)

The policy talks about single-address increments. It doesn't say "one address", 
it says "separate addresses" (plural), which allows for privacy extensions etc.

> 3) Can the device use any technology (such as prefix sharing, eg. RFC7278), 
> to also use addresses from a single prefix for other devices (same user)

Technology used is out of scope here.

Cheers,
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Jim Reid]

> On 19 Jan 2018, at 11:08, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg 
>  wrote:
> 
> In my opinion there are 3 points to clarify:

... irrelevant points snipped ...

PLEASE put those comments in a different thread which makes it clear you're 
discussing detail about 2016-4 (or whatever). Thanks.

This thread's supposed to be about an entirely different topic.

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

In my opinion there are 3 points to clarify:

1) Temporary always ? clearly not for point-to-point links, no-sense for data 
centers?
2) Single address (/128) for a single device (so the device can't use privacy? 
Utopia!), or do we allow if the devices get a single-prefix, it uses multiple 
addresses out of that prefix (so we allow VMs in the device also)
3) Can the device use any technology (such as prefix sharing, eg. RFC7278), to 
also use addresses from a single prefix for other devices (same user)


Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Sander 
Steffann <san...@steffann.nl>
Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 11:58
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>, Marco Schmidt 
<mschm...@ripe.net>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

Hi Jordi,

> 1) Policy text say: "... separate addresses (not prefixes) ...".
> 2) Max proposal say: "... or anything alike where devices of non-members 
of the organisation would get assigned an IP out of the organisation’s prefix 
..."
> 3) Max proposal say: "... Explicitly allowing another entity to be 
provided with addresses from a subnet ..."
> 4) Max proposal say: "... A subnet in the spirit of this policy is a 
prefix from the PI/PA assignment with a prefix length of /64 or longer ..."
> 5) Max proposal say: "... or for housing/hosting for servers in data 
centres ..."
> 6) IA say: "... There are cases where a /64 is needed per customer to 
provide a separate address ..."
> 7) IA say: "... It is the RIPE NCCs understanding that assignments as 
described above are dynamic in nature, either by varying the prefix or 
interface identifier (IID) over time. Any permanent and static assignments of a 
prefix would still be considered a sub-assignment ..."
> 8) IA say: "... by using single IPv6 addresses for End User devices and 
services ..."
> 
> [...]
> 
> 5 seem to indicate that this is acceptable in data centres, but 7 says 
permanent and static ... I don't see how a data centre can do temporary 
addresses?

Now that is indeed a contradiction that I agree with. Here the NCC's 
interpretation is more strict than what the policy says, and that should be 
corrected. Marco, can you look at this again from the NCC's perspective?

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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Jordi,

> 1) Policy text say: "... separate addresses (not prefixes) ...".
> 2) Max proposal say: "... or anything alike where devices of non-members of 
> the organisation would get assigned an IP out of the organisation’s prefix 
> ..."
> 3) Max proposal say: "... Explicitly allowing another entity to be provided 
> with addresses from a subnet ..."
> 4) Max proposal say: "... A subnet in the spirit of this policy is a prefix 
> from the PI/PA assignment with a prefix length of /64 or longer ..."
> 5) Max proposal say: "... or for housing/hosting for servers in data centres 
> ..."
> 6) IA say: "... There are cases where a /64 is needed per customer to provide 
> a separate address ..."
> 7) IA say: "... It is the RIPE NCCs understanding that assignments as 
> described above are dynamic in nature, either by varying the prefix or 
> interface identifier (IID) over time. Any permanent and static assignments of 
> a prefix would still be considered a sub-assignment ..."
> 8) IA say: "... by using single IPv6 addresses for End User devices and 
> services ..."
> 
> [...]
> 
> 5 seem to indicate that this is acceptable in data centres, but 7 says 
> permanent and static ... I don't see how a data centre can do temporary 
> addresses?

Now that is indeed a contradiction that I agree with. Here the NCC's 
interpretation is more strict than what the policy says, and that should be 
corrected. Marco, can you look at this again from the NCC's perspective?

Cheers,
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

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 <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Malcolm 
Hutty <malc...@linx.net>
Fecha: martes, 16 de enero de 2018, 12:11
Para: Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
<jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
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

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Hi Gert,

The problem in this case is that I don't think the IA is sharing our 
understanding ... at least from some of us, and thus contradicting the policy 
text, which you say is not possible.

1) Policy text say: "... separate addresses (not prefixes) ...".
2) Max proposal say: "... or anything alike where devices of non-members of the 
organisation would get assigned an IP out of the organisation’s prefix ..."
3) Max proposal say: "... Explicitly allowing another entity to be provided 
with addresses from a subnet ..."
4) Max proposal say: "... A subnet in the spirit of this policy is a prefix 
from the PI/PA assignment with a prefix length of /64 or longer ..."
5) Max proposal say: "... or for housing/hosting for servers in data centres 
..."
6) IA say: "... There are cases where a /64 is needed per customer to provide a 
separate address ..."
7) IA say: "... It is the RIPE NCCs understanding that assignments as described 
above are dynamic in nature, either by varying the prefix or interface 
identifier (IID) over time. Any permanent and static assignments of a prefix 
would still be considered a sub-assignment ..."
8) IA say: "... by using single IPv6 addresses for End User devices and 
services ..."

My point is that up to a /64 is a single prefix, so this contradicts 1 (not 
prefixes) above, vs 4 and 6. So, may be the right wording is "not multiple 
prefixes".

Also, 1 say "addresses", but 2 say "an IP" and 3 say "addresses".

5 seem to indicate that this is acceptable in data centres, but 7 says 
permanent and static ... I don't see how a data centre can do temporary 
addresses?

Further to that, email exchange with Marco/co-chairs, get me very confused ... 
as it is not clear to me if it is possible, if we pass this policy proposal, if 
from a single /64 prefix, a guest device can use a single /128 or, because the 
device needs multiple addresses (do we remember that devices in addition to the 
SLAAC or DHCP address make up automatically privacy addresses?), or if the 
device is running VMs, can use the same prefix with different addresses for 
those VMs ? Not to talk about a more complex case, such a device connecting to 
a hot stop and doing tethering to other devices from the same user ...

If ONLY a single address can be used, technically is impossible to make this 
policy work, unless we have a mechanisms that MANDATE that the devices must use 
only SLAAC or only DHCPv6 and they MUST disable privacy addresses, and they 
MUST NOT run VMs.

Is that realistic?

Can we state in clear words (not referring to the complete policy proposal 
document), not a long page, just a few paragraphs, what do we have consensus on?

My view, and Max could confirm if his view was this one, or if he will agree on 
that, up to a single /64 is ok, and you use one or multiple addresses of it, 
for one or multiple devices, but only in temporary "periods" of time (which 
match the usage in hot-spots, guest and employees BYOD in corporate networks, 
VPNs, temporary usage in data centers). I think the only case that is not 
temporary, and I agree, is the point-to-point link, which clearly should be 
allowed. I'm not sure if I'm missing any other possible cases, just trying to 
scope as much as possible all the possibilities thru a few examples.

I don't know if this requires a new round with the policy returning it to the 
list or whatever is needed, or if it requires passing the policy even if it is 
clear (in my opinion) that is an "impossible to apply policy" (and thus 
consensus is irreal) and then I'm happy to make a new policy proposal, but my 
view is that it doesn't make any sense if we can clarify it now with a very 
simple modification of the policy text that Max proposed (even if it need 4 
additional weeks for review period or whatever), that we could approve now 
something "imposible" and restart with a new policy.

Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Gert 
Doering <g...@space.net>
Fecha: miércoles, 17 de enero de 2018, 18:09
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:40:28AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg wrote:
> 1) When you believe you agree with a policy proposal and declare it to 
the list (so chairs can measure consensus), do you ???agree??? only with the 
???policy text??? or with the arguments written down in the policy proposal, or 
with the NCC interpretation (impact analysis), or all of them?

People sometimes explicitely mention this ("I agree with the aims of the
proposal and the way it is written").  Sometimes they don't agree with
all of it (&

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:40:28AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg wrote:
> 1) When you believe you agree with a policy proposal and declare it to the 
> list (so chairs can measure consensus), do you ???agree??? only with the 
> ???policy text??? or with the arguments written down in the policy proposal, 
> or with the NCC interpretation (impact analysis), or all of them?

People sometimes explicitely mention this ("I agree with the aims of the
proposal and the way it is written").  Sometimes they don't agree with
all of it ("I agree with the aims of the proposal but the text needs more
work").

And sometimes they state "support", which I take as an indication that 
they agree both with the aim and the wording of the proposal.


> 2) What if the text in those 3 pieces are presenting contradictions or can be 
> easily be interpreted in different ways?

We've had proposals where the IA brought up very much inintended consequences
(contradicting the rationale, the IA cannot "contradict the policy text"),
and this was addressed by a new round of policy text and new IA.

Which is, basically, why we have the IA in the first place: ensure that
the NCC shares our understanding of what we're asking the colleagues to do.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Jim Reid]

> On 16 Jan 2018, at 11:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg 
>  wrote:
> 
> My view is, in addition to that, if the contradictions are discovered during 
> the PDP process, consensus can’t be declared until we can address them.

Nope. If the WG decides that it's OK for a proposal to have a contradiction or 
be confusing then there's a consensus for that PoV. It would of course be bad 
if a WG reached that conclusion. But if that's what they decide, it shouldn't 
prevent a consensus declaration. If a WG makes stupid choices, that's initially 
the WG's problem. And maybe that state of affairs would encourage someone to 
present a new proposal which will correct those bad decisions.

Policy proposals (and policies) don't have to be perfect. The just have to be 
good enough.

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Hi Jim,

See below.

Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Jim 
Reid <j...@rfc1035.com>
Fecha: martes, 16 de enero de 2018, 12:12
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean



> On 16 Jan 2018, at 10:40, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg 
<address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> 1) When you believe you agree with a policy proposal and declare it to 
the list (so chairs can measure consensus), do you “agree” only with the 
“policy text” or with the arguments written down in the policy proposal, or 
with the NCC interpretation (impact analysis), or all of them?

Depends. IIRC in the past I think I've just supported the proposal and not 
cared about the arguments behind it or the impact analysis.

[Jordi] This has been my main way to evaluate a proposal always, read the 
policy text and decide upon that, because at the end, is the only one that can 
be enforced.

> 2) What if the text in those 3 pieces are presenting contradictions or 
can be easily be interpreted in different ways?

I would raise those issues and be crystal-clear about where the confusions 
or ambiguities were. And most likely talk to the WG chairs before taking those 
concerns to the list.

[Jordi]  I’m talking with the chairs about that since yesterday, even if I also 
think is a debate for the list, not just the chairs.

Jordi, I think it's not helpful to continue this discussion. If you remain 
unhappy with the consensus declaration on 2016-04, please use the appeals 
machinery provided in the PDP instead of wasting everyone's time exploring 
rat-holes.

[Jordi] I think it makes sense to avoid an appeal if we can clarify the 
situation before that.




**
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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Jim Reid]

> On 16 Jan 2018, at 11:11, Malcolm Hutty  wrote:
> 
> 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.

Indeed. And how those objections were considered/addressed/resolved.

> 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.

Me too.

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Thanks Jan,

Would you agree that if the contradictions are discovered, they should be 
resolved, and meanwhile, what it is valid is *only* the policy text?

My view is, in addition to that, if the contradictions are discovered during 
the PDP process, consensus can’t be declared until we can address them.

Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Jan 
Ingvoldstad <frett...@gmail.com>
Fecha: martes, 16 de enero de 2018, 11:54
Para: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:40 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

> 1) When you believe you agree with a policy proposal and declare it to 
the list (so chairs can measure consensus), do you “agree” only with the 
“policy text” or with the arguments written down in the policy proposal, or 
with the NCC interpretation (impact analysis), or all of them?

Obviously, if I state only that I agree, I agree that the policy
proposal as written is acceptable, and should be implemented, in light
of whatever arguments and analysis have been made.

> 2) What if the text in those 3 pieces are presenting contradictions or 
can be easily be interpreted in different ways?

In that case, I have probably not seen the contradictions, or don't
think that they are contradictions.
-- 
Jan





**
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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Malcolm Hutty]

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:40 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg  wrote:

> 1) When you believe you agree with a policy proposal and declare it to the 
> list (so chairs can measure consensus), do you “agree” only with the “policy 
> text” or with the arguments written down in the policy proposal, or with the 
> NCC interpretation (impact analysis), or all of them?

Obviously, if I state only that I agree, I agree that the policy
proposal as written is acceptable, and should be implemented, in light
of whatever arguments and analysis have been made.

> 2) What if the text in those 3 pieces are presenting contradictions or can be 
> easily be interpreted in different ways?

In that case, I have probably not seen the contradictions, or don't
think that they are contradictions.
-- 
Jan

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Hi Jim,

I think the flaw is in the PDP or the way we are using it. Maybe we have done a 
“lazy” interpretation at some point, and then we get used to it (so, it is not 
a chairs issue, is a community one).

Please, forget for a minute about this policy proposal and seriously consider 
two questions:

1) When you believe you agree with a policy proposal and declare it to the list 
(so chairs can measure consensus), do you “agree” only with the “policy text” 
or with the arguments written down in the policy proposal, or with the NCC 
interpretation (impact analysis), or all of them?
2) What if the text in those 3 pieces are presenting contradictions or can be 
easily be interpreted in different ways?



Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Jim 
Reid <j...@rfc1035.com>
Fecha: martes, 16 de enero de 2018, 11:02
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean



> On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg 
<address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> Then, my reading is that EVERY policy proposal can always reach 
consensus, is just a matter of finding enough folks (or virtual voices) that 
register into the mailing list and support the proposal vs non-supporters.
> 
> Not sure if you see my point?

That's very true. I don't even understand what point you're trying to make. 
:-)

Your reading/understanding of the PDP is flawed Jordi. RIPE642 explicitly 
says a proposal may not reach consensus. Or even get to a point where a 
consensus decision needs to be taken. So it's simply wrong to say every 
proposal can always reach consensus. Common sense should tell you that too. You 
should also be aware that we've had policy proposals which have died one way or 
another. They didn't reach consensus. QED.

And yes, in theory it's possible for a charlatan to "stack the deck" by 
having their (ficticious) friends express support for a proposal. [That's an 
unwelcome side effect of having an open community with no 
membership/eligibility criteria.] This is where the sound judgement of the WG's 
chair comes in. They should be able to detect these kinds of manipulations and 
take appropriate action. There are further checks and balances too. The appeals 
procedure mean a dodgy consensus determination can be scrutinised by the WGCC 
and the RIPE chairman.






**
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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Jim Reid]

> On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg 
>  wrote:
> 
> Then, my reading is that EVERY policy proposal can always reach consensus, is 
> just a matter of finding enough folks (or virtual voices) that register into 
> the mailing list and support the proposal vs non-supporters.
> 
> Not sure if you see my point?

That's very true. I don't even understand what point you're trying to make. :-)

Your reading/understanding of the PDP is flawed Jordi. RIPE642 explicitly says 
a proposal may not reach consensus. Or even get to a point where a consensus 
decision needs to be taken. So it's simply wrong to say every proposal can 
always reach consensus. Common sense should tell you that too. You should also 
be aware that we've had policy proposals which have died one way or another. 
They didn't reach consensus. QED.

And yes, in theory it's possible for a charlatan to "stack the deck" by having 
their (ficticious) friends express support for a proposal. [That's an unwelcome 
side effect of having an open community with no membership/eligibility 
criteria.] This is where the sound judgement of the WG's chair comes in. They 
should be able to detect these kinds of manipulations and take appropriate 
action. There are further checks and balances too. The appeals procedure mean a 
dodgy consensus determination can be scrutinised by the WGCC and the RIPE 
chairman.

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Hi Gert,

Below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Gert 
Doering <g...@space.net>
Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 14:51
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:09:27PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg wrote:
> I agree that is not ???unanimity???, but I don???t think there is 
consensus on this proposal, and even less I think is fair to extend the review 
period ???because??? a proposal has been brought in the last minute to another 
fora, when the chairs already declared ???that we don???t have consensus???.

At the end of the original review period, we had three options

  - withdraw, because no clear support either way from the community
  - change text, and come up with a new review period
  - explain that we need more input, and extend the review period

especially with the "we did not clear enough guidance", we regularily do
this (extending discussion or review periods).  Always with a clear 
explanation why this has been done.

[Jordi]This is what we have at the PDP, and thus the only way we can do 
option 3 that you mention above:
“The WG chair can also decide to have the draft RIPE Document edited and start 
a new Review Phase with a new version of the proposal.”

It may be a matter of wording calling it “extending” or “new” review phase, but 
wording matters, and in any case, the document was not edited as the PDP text 
indicates, neither we had a new version. It seems to me “mandatory” according 
to the PDP, as it not says “optionally”, to edit it and have a new review phase 
with a “new version of the proposal”.


> Is this meaning that we will always ???extend??? the PDP timeline *until* 
we reach consensus?

If extending the timeline leads to fruitful discussions that eventually
leads to consensus, this is a desirable outcome.

[Jordi] And totally agree here, but having the PDP followed, which means new 
version, etc.

> Then, my reading is that EVERY policy proposal can always reach 
consensus, is just a matter of finding enough folks (or virtual voices) that 
register into the mailing list and support the proposal vs non-supporters.
> 
> Not sure if you see my point?

Well, yes.  If an active proposer manages to get enough friends in here,
and also finds ways to shut down opposing voices by blackmail, bribery,
enough beer, or other ways, then you can get every proposal through.

I do not think this accurately reflects the process for 2016-04, though.

[Jordi] Again, wording matters in a PDP process:

“Max has brought up the topic at DENOG9 last week, to elicit more people into
adding input into this discussion - which would be helpful in evaluating
(rough) consensus.

Thus, we've decided that we will extent the review period by four weeks.”

My understanding of “adding input” is precisely, being able to contribute to a 
new version as the PDP indicates, however it was just “yes I support it”, etc.

I think our job is to resolve objections whenever we can, so we have a broader 
consensus. Is not that the goal of “consensus”?


Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279




**
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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:09:27PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg wrote:
> I agree that is not ???unanimity???, but I don???t think there is consensus 
> on this proposal, and even less I think is fair to extend the review period 
> ???because??? a proposal has been brought in the last minute to another fora, 
> when the chairs already declared ???that we don???t have consensus???.

At the end of the original review period, we had three options

  - withdraw, because no clear support either way from the community
  - change text, and come up with a new review period
  - explain that we need more input, and extend the review period

especially with the "we did not clear enough guidance", we regularily do
this (extending discussion or review periods).  Always with a clear 
explanation why this has been done.

> Is this meaning that we will always ???extend??? the PDP timeline *until* we 
> reach consensus?

If extending the timeline leads to fruitful discussions that eventually
leads to consensus, this is a desirable outcome.

> Then, my reading is that EVERY policy proposal can always reach consensus, is 
> just a matter of finding enough folks (or virtual voices) that register into 
> the mailing list and support the proposal vs non-supporters.
> 
> Not sure if you see my point?

Well, yes.  If an active proposer manages to get enough friends in here,
and also finds ways to shut down opposing voices by blackmail, bribery,
enough beer, or other ways, then you can get every proposal through.

I do not think this accurately reflects the process for 2016-04, though.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Jordi,

> I agree that is not “unanimity”, but I don’t think there is consensus on this 
> proposal, and even less I think is fair to extend the review period “because” 
> a proposal has been brought in the last minute to another fora, when the 
> chairs already declared “that we don’t have consensus”.
> 
> See this message:
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2017-November/012271.html
> 
> Is something that we should do for every policy proposal that don’t reach 
> consensus?

Definitely not. As you can see from the history of APWG we have had plenty 
proposals that never reach consensus, and this is fine.

> Is this meaning that we will always “extend” the PDP timeline *until* we 
> reach consensus?

Nope. The extension was because you suggested a new approach (going further 
than what the current proposal was addressing) and we wanted to see if there 
was support in the community for your approach. It turned out that solving the 
current need with a good-enough solution was seen as more important than 
getting a perfect solution some time in the future.

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

> Then, my reading is that EVERY policy proposal can always reach consensus, is 
> just a matter of finding enough folks (or virtual voices) that register into 
> the mailing list and support the proposal vs non-supporters.
> 
> Not sure if you see my point?

I see what you are saying, and I disagree with it. Please see the mailing list 
archives to check the history of this working group.

Cheers,
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Hi Jim,

I agree that is not “unanimity”, but I don’t think there is consensus on this 
proposal, and even less I think is fair to extend the review period “because” a 
proposal has been brought in the last minute to another fora, when the chairs 
already declared “that we don’t have consensus”.

See this message:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2017-November/012271.html

Is something that we should do for every policy proposal that don’t reach 
consensus?

Is this meaning that we will always “extend” the PDP timeline *until* we reach 
consensus?

Then, my reading is that EVERY policy proposal can always reach consensus, is 
just a matter of finding enough folks (or virtual voices) that register into 
the mailing list and support the proposal vs non-supporters.

Not sure if you see my point?

Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Jim 
Reid <j...@rfc1035.com>
Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 12:05
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean


> On 15 Jan 2018, at 10:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg 
<address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Obviously, I don’t agree, just because for me, “consensus” is having no 
objections

Jordi, whatever definition of consensus someone chooses is up to them. That 
doesn't mean it's right or the one that everybody else has to adopt. [We decide 
the definition of consensus by consensus. :-)] Consensus does not mean there 
have to be no objections. That's unanimous consensus. There's a difference. An 
important difference.

Maybe something is getting lost in translation? ie the Spanish for 
"consensus" means something similar to the definition you're using.

There can be consensus in RIPE (and other fora such as IETF and ICANN) even 
when there are objections. RFC7282 goes into this in great detail.

If we relied on unanimous consensus for decisions, nothing would ever get 
done because anyone would have a veto that could block progress. And in a very 
diverse community like RIPE, it'll be impossible for everyone to agree on 
everything.








**
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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Joao Damas]

Excellent
Thanks
Joao

> On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:59, Gert Doering  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Joao Damas wrote:
>> Well, that feels like just a way of cutting a discussion short.
>> One might want to read on the Dutch polder-model as an example of
>> how to cooperate with recognised differences.
> 
> APWG works on "rough consensus" and "all objections have been *addressed*"
> - which does not require "the person raising the objection is convinced
> and withdraws his or her objection".  We try to convince :-) - but since
> this does not always work, it's called "rough" consensus.
> 
> Besides this, there is different types of objections
> 
> - "I fully object to changing anything in this general direction, ever!"
> - "I think this is good, but I disagree with the wording, because..."
> - "I think this is good, and I see the need for a change, but the
>proposed policy change is not the right way to do it / is too limited,
>we should aim for a larger and more encompassing change"
> 
> 
> Type 1 objections can not be "postponed" - if you go somewhere against
> strong objection to the general direction, you need convincing, counter
> arguments, and occasionally you end up at "withdraw due to no consensus"
> (and sometimes the consensus is rougher than usual).
> 
> Type 2 objections are usually dealt with by going through a few review
> cycles with new text, incorporating such input into new versions of the
> document.  This is what we've had here: there was feedback to earlier
> policy text, and Max did quite a few rounds based on that feedback,
> together with RS, to come up with text that is clear to RS and to the WG.
> 
> Type 3 objections can be handled by taking notice of them, and starting a
> new policy proposal with the larger change after this one is done.
> 
> 
> Jordi's is - as I explained in my summary mail without detailling these
> categories - "type 3".  The WG has discussed his alternative idea, and
> there was not enough backing to change 2016-04 into something more general
> - instead there was support to finish 2016-04 *now*, instead of leaving
> those impacted by the current policy shortcomings waiting further, until
> we have consensus on how a larger policy change would look like.
> 
> Gert Doering
>-- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Joao Damas wrote:
> Well, that feels like just a way of cutting a discussion short.
> One might want to read on the Dutch polder-model as an example of
> how to cooperate with recognised differences.

APWG works on "rough consensus" and "all objections have been *addressed*"
- which does not require "the person raising the objection is convinced
and withdraws his or her objection".  We try to convince :-) - but since
this does not always work, it's called "rough" consensus.

Besides this, there is different types of objections

 - "I fully object to changing anything in this general direction, ever!"
 - "I think this is good, but I disagree with the wording, because..."
 - "I think this is good, and I see the need for a change, but the 
proposed policy change is not the right way to do it / is too limited,
we should aim for a larger and more encompassing change"


Type 1 objections can not be "postponed" - if you go somewhere against
strong objection to the general direction, you need convincing, counter 
arguments, and occasionally you end up at "withdraw due to no consensus"
(and sometimes the consensus is rougher than usual).

Type 2 objections are usually dealt with by going through a few review
cycles with new text, incorporating such input into new versions of the
document.  This is what we've had here: there was feedback to earlier
policy text, and Max did quite a few rounds based on that feedback, 
together with RS, to come up with text that is clear to RS and to the WG.

Type 3 objections can be handled by taking notice of them, and starting a
new policy proposal with the larger change after this one is done.


Jordi's is - as I explained in my summary mail without detailling these
categories - "type 3".  The WG has discussed his alternative idea, and 
there was not enough backing to change 2016-04 into something more general 
- instead there was support to finish 2016-04 *now*, instead of leaving 
those impacted by the current policy shortcomings waiting further, until 
we have consensus on how a larger policy change would look like.

Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Joao Damas]

Jim, Jordi,

> On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:04, Jim Reid  wrote:
> 
> Maybe something is getting lost in translation? ie the Spanish for 
> "consensus" means something similar to the definition you're using.

Could well be.
In both English and Spanish (and other languages) consensus derives from Latin, 
consentire, for “allow or agree to”.
In the English language consensus has evolved to usually mean a “general 
agreement” whereas in Spanish it implies consent, and therefore an objection 
implies no consent.
Just clarifying the language and not taking a position on this at this time.

> 
> If we relied on unanimous consensus for decisions, nothing would ever get 
> done because anyone would have a veto that could block progress. And in a 
> very diverse community like RIPE, it'll be impossible for everyone to agree 
> on everything.

Well, that feels like just a way of cutting a discussion short. One might want 
to read on the Dutch polder-model as an example of how to cooperate with 
recognised differences.

Joao

[address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

[Jim Reid]

> On 15 Jan 2018, at 10:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Obviously, I don’t agree, just because for me, “consensus” is having no 
> objections

Jordi, whatever definition of consensus someone chooses is up to them. That 
doesn't mean it's right or the one that everybody else has to adopt. [We decide 
the definition of consensus by consensus. :-)] Consensus does not mean there 
have to be no objections. That's unanimous consensus. There's a difference. An 
important difference.

Maybe something is getting lost in translation? ie the Spanish for "consensus" 
means something similar to the definition you're using.

There can be consensus in RIPE (and other fora such as IETF and ICANN) even 
when there are objections. RFC7282 goes into this in great detail.

If we relied on unanimous consensus for decisions, nothing would ever get done 
because anyone would have a veto that could block progress. And in a very 
diverse community like RIPE, it'll be impossible for everyone to agree on 
everything.