Michael, sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. Maybe I should apply for a job?
If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no difference.
I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat quite arrogant by that. RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop soonest possible. We're in internet business - and rely on phys presence. That's ridicilous. Btw: No need to hint for proxy votes - who's trusting opponents? And what are proxy votes good for when not having heard or seen the discussion in before? Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon@versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von michael.dillon@bt.com Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 13:42 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
No, it's not a fair or open way to do that. [What about those who can't physically get to the meeting? Web/phone participation doesn't count. Who gets to vote?]
If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no difference.
It's also incompatible with the current Policy Development Process which is based on list-driven, bottom-up consensus.
The extraordinary general meeting would not be about changing policy, it would be about an activity plan to divide up the remaining inventory of IPv4 addresses between the applicants who have requested a piece of the final /8.
Why do we need to decide this today, when there is little motivation to reach a decision and not enough information available to make a decision. For instance we do not know what will be the market penetration of IPv6 at the point of IANA runout.
IMO this is another reason for not even trying to make a decision. The current policy isn't broken and doesn't need fixing.
This is also a reasonable approach, i.e. I have suggested option c) but your suggestion of option d) is also worthy of consideration.
I'm glad we agree about something Michael. :-)
Perhaps we agree that simply re-evaluating options a) and b) is not the best way to proceed?
--Michael Dillon