Ciprian

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:28:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he
> never did such things. But he clearly took advantage of the merger &
> acquisition procedure and now he tries to close it through the policy
> 2015-04. Isn't this hypocrisy ?

OK, *this* is something that needs an answer - which is unfortunate, because
I wanted to let this thread die silently.

I am not the proposer of 2015-04, so I certainly do not "try to do anything
through the policy 2015-04". Erik Bais is.

I'm not sure if I have commented on the merits of 2015-04 before - I might
have, in discussions about the merits of having a single transfer policy
document vs. lots of fragments in other policy documents, but certainly
not on the aspect of "after a M&A, transfers of acquired space is no
longer possible for 24 months".

If you try to actually understand what this document says:

"The proposal extends the 24-month transfer restriction to resources
that have been transferred due to changes to an organisation?s
business structure (such as a merger or acquisition). It is important
to note that this restriction only prevents policy transfers ?
resources subject to this restriction may still be transferred due
to further mergers or acquisitions within the 24-month period."

this in no way interacts with "company A buys company B, including their
resources" - if in effect, it would deny company A from selling off B's
resources afterward - which is not what we do, or intend to do.

In case you're confusing 2015-04 (in your text) with 2016-03 (in the
subject), it should be pointed out that 2016-03 very explicitely states:

"5.5 Transfers of Allocations
...
4. Point 3 of this article does not apply to any change of holdership
of address space as a result of company mergers or acquisitions"

The very first version of 2016-03 would have required holders of multiple
/22s, no matter how they came to hold them, to return all but one - but
that was changed, not by *my* doing, but because the community made it
very clear that that was not wanted.

So, whatever point you are trying to make

- I'm not the proposer of any of these proposals
- AND neither of them disallows merges & acquisitions of LIRs with /22s

> But let's not mix the discussions. My main concern is that two policies
> which are not properly discussed and approved by the community, which seem
> far from having a consensus (as far as I can see) will most likely be seen
> by the chair as perfect solutions that need to be implemented right away
> and he will say that there is consensus even if it isn't.

Now that's an interesting point, and shows you've totally read and understood
my summary on the discussion phase of 2016-03 v2.0 :-) (especially the bits
about "proposer's decision" and "more support needed in review phase").

... and the bits about "If you disagree with my interpretation..." that are
at the end of every declaration of consensus - and have indeed prompted
corrections in the past.

> I would remind you that it was another policy when Gert stepped down and
> admitted that he wouldn't consider himself objective enough and let Sanders
> take the decision. If he can't be objective enough from time to time, then
> ... just praise him, what else would you do ?

There are cases where I clearly *want* to take a side - and then I say so,
and put down the chair duties for these.

So - can we stick to the merits or not of the proposal in the Subject:
line now (which happens to be 2016-03)? If not, please change the
Subject: to something that makes it clear that this is personal, and not
related to the specific policies at hand.

Dear WG participants: please see that we can let this thread re-focus.

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

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: 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