Hi,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 5 September 2012 10:53, Dean Pemberton <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:dean@deanpemberton.com" target="_blank">dean@deanpemberton.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

Hi Everyone,<br>...<br>
POSSIBLE SOLUTION:<br>
<br>
With simple changes made to the PDP, the membership could be<br>
encouraged to bring discuss issues and possible solutions rather than<br>
presenting a finished piece of work. As such, policy proposals will be<br>
more representative of the views of the whole membership and consensus<br>
should be much easier to achieve.<br>
<br>
My suggested changes to the PDP are as follows:<br>
<br>
.  A Problem Statement is posted to the Policy-SIG  list outlining a<br>
problem or issue with the current APNIC policies.  This need be no<br>
more than the first paragraph of this email.  It is purely a place to<br>
start discussion.<br>
<br>
.  The proposer leads conversation on the Policy-SIG list to develop<br>
possible solutions to this Problem Statement.  ...</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This scheme still requires the proposer to initially create the (final) Problem Statement.</div><div><br></div><div>I think that if someone is experiencing a problem, then there are likely to other people with similar problems,</div>

<div>and the usefulness of the process could be improved by solving the generic problem rather than one point problem.</div><div><br></div><div>So I think the flow could be</div><div><br></div><div>1) initial problem posted</div>

<div>2) problem discussion</div><div>3) Problem Statement posted</div><div>4) solution discussion</div><div>5) policy change proposal (if required)</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>    John</div></div>