I think I agree with Skeeve on this; I support Dean's concept as an option, and perhaps even as a "best practice" - but not mandatory, and not with enforced minimum timeframes for discussion.

I would like to see direct submission of a proposal to always be an option, as there may well be times when the issue is obvious or simple enough that preliminary discussion is simply unnecessary. Perhaps the chairs could have a right to force a submitted proposal into an on-list discussion of problem statement before publishing the proposal, if the chairs consider the proposal for some reason to be too ill-defined or inappropriate as submitted.

Regards, David

On 5/09/2012 3:31 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
I am not so sure about this.

I don't like unenforceable policy.

In that... even if there is a problem statement, and some people heavily object, then the author wouldn't be bound to take it into account and can still continue to the policy process.

There are always different views and I'm confused how the problem-statement and discussion period could in any way be enforceable.

I also think that experienced policy people probably don't need this - they know what they are in for and have probably shopped the policy around - especially if they have multiple co-authors.

...Skeeve


Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net

Phone: 1300 753 383; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellego ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve 

twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net

The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco – IBM - Cloud



On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:
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.

*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy




*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy