Hello Fernando, Since the question was directed to you, you cannot expected a policy author to answer on your behalf. Bertrand did not expect me to answer on his behalf. As he stated, the answer I gave to your question was correct, and he believed there was no reason to repeat what I had already said.
I was question your decision to give consensus to such a controversial proposal that has had zero support from community. I don't what in this proposal, gives you the idea that it is "controversial". The remark that it has had zero support from the community is incorrect in every definition of the word, see the consensus calls at the AMM (https://youtu.be/Gf2775Zcxw4?list=PLSnVjSuzLJcwqW3uz1JBZE1wo13VcrHsh&t=569) and OPM (https://youtu.be/fQBgGOCrm5k?list=PLSnVjSuzLJcwqW3uz1JBZE1wo13VcrHsh&t=3678) held during APRICOT 2024 where it did reach consensus, and did receive support. I do acknowledge that there were some members who did not support the proposal. Sometimes on these forums I get in doubt if the Chairs opinion and preference for a proposal end up influencing them to give consensus to a proposal just because they like it and find it good which should not happen, because Chairs function is to declare if based on the community discussion there was consensus or not and void his own opinion from the evaluation. I am not saying by that that what happened in this case, but certainly gets us doubts, specially in a case where nobody else from community supported it. I do agree that there is a potential risk that chair and co-chairs may have an opinion on proposals which could influence their decision to declare that consensus has been reached, however, the chair and co-chairs are trusted members of the community and voted for by the community to make these decisions and are trusted to be impartial when making these decisions. Your gaslighting by saying that "I am not saying by that that what happened in this case" then going on to say "but certainly gets us doubts, specially in a case where nobody else from community supported it" is (in my opinion) disrespectful of the process and the chairs/co-chairs, even more so when there was community support behind the proposal, refer to the previous links showing the consensus calls. Well, what happens in the list cannot be valued less than what happens int he (sic) OPM No one is stating or claiming that mailing list discussions are less valued than in-person/remote OPM discussions. During the discussion was mentioned points of the RFC 7282 but they were ignored. They were not ignored, I addressed them. I want to mention them again to question your decision to keep the consensus to a proposal that had basically zero support from the community. Again, this is incorrect. The proposal did have community support. I would recommend watching the OPM and AMM discussions regarding prop-156. turned into a neutral opinion it still support doesn't exist to give consensus to a proposal where apparently only the author was in favor Neutral support is support neither for or against the proposal. I was also not the only person in favour of the proposal. Again, watch the meeting videos. At what stage all the many different problems I mentioned for this proposal not to pass and that it was unnecessary were addressed ? I addressed the issues/concerns you raised at every point where you raised them. I also addressed the concerns the Secretariat issued in their Impact Assessment as well as the concerns raised by the JPOPF-ST. Further, the determination by one person that they believe it is "unnecessary" does not give cause for it to not be endorsed and implemented. I have put several technical considerations to show there was alternatives to avoid having yet another unnecessary policy and the author defended his proposal with what I understand as "nice to have thing" and seems to not have understood all the technical points put. I addressed your "technical considerations" and have demonstrated reasons for which they may not be viable. If network operators elect to not take advantage of the benefits of this proposal then that's their prerogative, this should not prevent those who wish to do so from doing so. You've also misunderstood my "defence". One in special that is very hard to buy is that it is necessary and a must to supply public IPv4 to people on these temporary event during IPv4 exhaustion as if the current scenario was completely ignored. By just giving any reply to a question it not necessarily addressing it. I do not understand this statement. Could you please clarify? It also says "The Chair may ask this for individual elements of the proposal." and "If the majority of the participants indicate that they have no opinion, the Chair and the author should work to stimulate discussion about the proposal." . May I ask when was that done, specially in a proposal that community showed near no interest in discussing ? As it says, "The Chair MAY ask". This does not mean they have to and they can choose not to, if they believe this would serve little to no benefit. Also, what defines a majority? Would this be 51% of everyone who had an opinion? How would the Chairs determine who does and does not have an opinion? Neutrality does not equate to not having an opinion, and not having an opinion does not equate to neutrality. "If the participants do not believe that the problem is real, or significant" Proposals do not need to address a problem or multiple problems. They can also be designed to allow the Secretariat to implement new functions, features and tools that they can't do if it is not in-line with current policy. "The Chair should devote sufficient time for participants to discuss ways to overcome major objections. As in the case of minor objections, participants, including the proponent, should work together to develop solutions that overcome the objections.". Didn't seem to happen too. There was more than ample and sufficient time to discuss concerns and issues raised. prop-156-v001 was originally posted to this very mailing list by the Chairs back on 13 December 2023, giving approximately 2.5 months to discuss the entire proposal. for me it is concerning a proposal with such a controversy discussion and how was conducted could reach consensus Could you please explain how it is controversial? It is shocking that APNIC Development Process up to today doesn't have an appeal process in order to deal with this issue. Speak for yourself. The PDP has a "final comment period" which allows for discussions to take place, post-consensus call. This is the time for discussions of this nature to take place. I also urge APNIC EC to not Endorse this proposal. The final comment period has now closed. Regards, Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
