[ppml] Policy without consensus?

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net>
>      On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
>    > > Well, the last PP 2005-1 was completely unworkable. I
>    > > supported it because it was better than nothing - but only
>    > > barely. (Many) People who voted for it were holding their
>    > > noses and voting yes in the hope of improving it later.
>
> Yup, that's certainly true of me, and of everyone else I know who voted
> for it.  It wasn't acceptable as voted, but there was nothing else on the
> table, and nothing else we could vote for.  Yes, that's a really major
> problem.

So what's the alternative to floating one proposal that the author hopes 
appeases every faction?  Floating a dozen and seeing which (if any) pass?

>    > That puts us in a difficult position.  The process says we can
>    > only ratify a policy is there is evidence of consensus.  The
>    > only exception would be in case of an emergency, and I think
>    > we're a couple of years from an emergency.
>
> I think we're a couple of years into an emergency.

Emergency?  The Internet is running just fine with IPv6, and will for nearly 
another decade even using the most pessimistic models I've seen.  Routing 
slots and government interference present greater threats to the Internet 
than address scarcity for the time being.

IMHO, this shouldn't qualify as an emergency in the eyes of the BoT until 
IANA runs out of IPv4 space to give the RIRs.

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin