Hi,
From: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Post Prop-103
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:53:15 +0500
| - There shouldn't be any corner case where the new PDP process can be
| bypassed. All policy proposals should be shared on policy-sig mailing list
| as a problem statement first i.e. no escape clause in any circumstances.
One point I mentioned at last meeting was a 'global policy' proposed
in other region has to be discussed with 'as is' text, and might be
difficult to go along proposed procedure fully.
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
From: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Post Prop-103
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:53:15 +0500
| Hi Dean,
| I would like to add couple of points here which I raised during Policy-Sig
| in PP.
|
| - There shouldn't be any corner case where the new PDP process can be
| bypassed. All policy proposals should be shared on policy-sig mailing list
| as a problem statement first i.e. no escape clause in any circumstances.
|
| - Problem Statement should be according to the draft-document x.x.y and
| should state the problem in details and the impact it is creating in
| general to the community.
|
| - There should be atleast 4 weeks [or whatever decided as per consensus] of
| community discussion for any problem statement shared on the mailing list.
|
|
| > My suggested changes to the PDP are as follows:
| >
| > . A Problem Statement is posted to the Policy-SIG list outlining a
| > problem or issue with the current APNIC policies. This need be no
| > more than the first paragraph of this email. It is purely a place to
| > start discussion.
| >
| > . The proposer leads conversation on the Policy-SIG list to develop
| > possible solutions to this Problem Statement. I have referenced the
| > proposer here and given them a responsibility because I want the
| > expectation to be that they are involved in the discussion and open to
| > feedback from the community. It would be too easy to have a proposer
| > post a problem statement followed by a solution without any
| > discussion. We would be in the same situation we are today.
| >
| > . At this stage the APNIC Secretariat can comment if they consider
| > that the Problem Statement can be covered within current policies. As
| > we have seen recently, it is possible that some problems can be solved
| > within the existing policies purely through discussion with the
| > secretariat. Rather than being excluded from these discussions, the
| > APNIC Secretariat should feel empowered to offer feedback on how the
| > problem could be solved within the existing policy framework.
| >
| > . When the proposer feels that they have a solution to their Problem
| > Statement, they draft a policy and submit it in a similar fashion as
| > occurs currently within the PDP. There is no time limit on how short
| > or how long this might take. I do not want to preclude that in
| > serious situations this may all happen on a single day. It may take
| > months to get a solution which people feel they can get consensus on.
| > The important thing is that when you go infront of the policy-sig at a
| > meeting, you should know what the community feels about your proposal.
| >
| >
| >
| Regards,
|
| Aftab A. Siddiqui.