Re: [sig-policy] Post Prop-103
Global policies could very well be an exception to this proposed
practice. We should ensure that we keep this situation in mind as the
discussion progresses.
Kind Regards,
Dean
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏
<fujisaki at syce dot net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> From: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot 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 at gmail dot 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.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
Regards,
Dean