Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update

  • To: SIG policy <sig-policy@apnic.net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update
  • From: Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:04:02 +1100
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=g-softbank-co-jp.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=0LwlrSfxzhb8zP/OsLCJCNY5W6nZttwaAQMRtKjaU2c=; b=XGOrmhIb2xlaexopvboa3CLi7LuC8/qo7TBTC3R1K72eSBovMUjjH99Ctp/ENCoWmH O8h+/ZpYRvaMXxSd1ndRd9Ckc0BJ5JE49Qr7C5zYkggX+5ioylQM15iUtR/9rbPjixkx dRmtTEkO1DKPBJxM4RZM77cd+t44b85WJLpHLasmDsw615dXigEDaVSRr+oiSMCETHOD l7D8NoETJagniYR46gNign18EGeFNvbpF9Ehl9hURAYRo1duAvMBxYO0BJtBPqBno+sV wWbduldVQfe7sHaFzlTKyOK+3YUI9XGqIrQ49Tn8P1asTlEwR93sB2ltcYZpNqdKPvtl G7Rw==
  • In-reply-to: <33F97316-BE01-4439-A348-E60F3192DA3A@micrologic.nc>
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <33F97316-BE01-4439-A348-E60F3192DA3A@micrologic.nc>

    • Dear Colleagues,


      I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.


      I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-126,

      based on a meeting we organised on 22nd Aug to discuss these proposals.


      Many supporting opinions were expressed about the point of confirming consensus on ML.


      A question of doubt and concern was expressed, in that it discontinues AMM consensus and changes the proposal's deadline.


      (Consensus on ML)

       - I support to take a consensus confirmation with ML instead of AMM.

       - I support on the point of view that this proposal will expand  the opportunities to the remote participant to discussing about proposal.

       - For consensus confirmation in ML, only proposal which reached consensus in OPM are eligible and the proposal which not reached consensus are not eligible. it is not good to lose the opportunity to state a opinion at the ML about the proposal which not reach consensus.


      (Consensus at AMM)

       - The meaning of taking consensus in AMM is for members to clarify the pros and cons about APNIC’s implementation. This is not a simple substitution from AMM to ML.

       - In addition to the past, how about added a confirmation of consensus in ML ?


      (Change of deadline of proposal)

       - For the purpose of this proposal, it is better to have a longer online discussion period. Why shorten the deadline by proposal? The proposer should clarify the intention of wanting to move the deadline.


      (Other)

       - It is better to be able to measure the effect after change


      Regards,
      Satoru Tsurumaki



      2018-08-10 12:42 GMT+11:00 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc>:

      Dear SIG members,

      The proposal "prop-126-v001: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy SIG
      for review.

      It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 46 in
      Noumea, New Caledonia on Thursday, 13 September 2018.

      We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
      before the meeting.

      The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
      important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
      express your views on the proposal:

      • Do you support or oppose this proposal?
      • Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
      • Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
      • Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
      • What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?

      Information about this proposal is available at:

      http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-126

      Regards

      Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
      APNIC Policy SIG Chairs

      https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/prop-126-v001.txt


      prop-126-v001: PDP Update


      Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
      jordi.palet@theipv6company.com

      1. Problem Statement

      With its requirement of face-to-face participation at the OPM, the current PDP
      might – at least partially – be the cause of the low levels of community participation
      in the process by using the policy mailing list.

      This proposal would allow an increased participation, by considering also the comments
      in the list for the consensus determination. So, consensus would be determined balancing
      the mailing list and the forum, and would therefore increase community participation.

      Further, policy proposals are meant for the community as a whole, and not only APNIC
      members, so this proposal suggest removing the actual “double” consensus required in
      both groups.

      Moreover, requiring 4 weeks in advance to the OPM, seems unnecessary as the consensus
      determination can be done in two stages (SIG meeting and list), so the proposal looks
      for just 1 week in advance to the SIG responsible for that proposal.

      Finally, it completes the PDP by adding a simple mechanism for solving disagreements
      during an appeals phase and an improved definition of ‘consensus’.

      2. Objective of policy change

      To allow that consensus is determined also looking at the opinions of community
      members that are not able to travel to the meetings, adjust the time required
      before the relevant SIG to submit the proposals, not requiring “double” consensus
      with the APNIC members and facilitating a simple method for appeals.

      3. Situation in other regions

      The PDP is different in the different RIRs. This proposal is similar to the RIPE PDP,
      possibly the region with the broadest participation in its policy proposal discussions,
      although there are certain differences such as the mandatory use of the mailing list
      and the meeting, which is more similar to the PDP at ARIN (another region with broad
      community participation). LACNIC has recently adopted a similar policy proposal with
      the same aims.

      4. Proposed policy solution

      PDP documnet
      https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-development/development-process/#4

      1. Proposal process

      A policy proposal must go through the following chronological steps in order to be
      adopted by APNIC.

      Actual:

      Step 1

      Discussion before the OPM

      A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to the SIG Chair
      four weeks before the start of the OPM. The proposal must be in text which clearly
      expresses the proposal, with explicit mention of any changes being proposed to existing
      policies and the reasons for those changes. The APNIC Secretariat will recommend a
      preferred proposal format. If the four-week deadline is not met, proposals may still
      be submitted and presented for discussion at the meeting; however, no decision may
      be made by the meeting regarding the proposal. The proposal will need to be resubmitted
      in time for the following meeting if the author wishes to pursue the proposal.

      Proposed:

      Step 1

      Discussion before the OPM

      A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to the SIG Chair
      one week before the start of the OPM. The proposal must be in text which clearly expresses
      the proposal, with explicit mention of any changes being proposed to existing policies and
      the reasons for those changes. The APNIC Secretariat will recommend a preferred proposal
      format. If the four-week deadline is not met, proposals may still be submitted and presented
      for discussion at the meeting; however, no decision may be made by the meeting regarding the
      proposal. The proposal will need to be resubmitted in time for the following meeting if the
      author wishes to pursue the proposal.

      Actual:

      Step 2

      Consensus at the OPM

      Consensus is defined as “general agreement” as observed by the Chair of the meeting. Consensus
      must be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting for the process
      to continue. If there is no consensus on a proposal at either of these forums, the SIG (either
      on the mailing list or at a future OPM) will discuss whether to amend the proposal or to
      withdraw it.

      Proposed:

      Step 2

      Consensus at the OPM

      Consensus is defined as “general agreement” as observed by the Chairs. Consensus is determined in
      both, the SIG session and the SIG mailing list. If there is no consensus on a proposal, the SIG
      (either on the mailing list or at a future OPM) will discuss whether to amend the proposal or to
      withdraw it.

      Actual:

      Step 3

      Discussion after the OPM

      Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AMM will be circulated on the appropriate
      SIG mailing list for a period. This is known as the “comment period”. The duration of the “comment
      period” will be not shorter than four weeks and not longer than eight weeks. The decision to extend
      more than four weeks, including the duration of the extension, will be determined at the sole
      discretion of the SIG Chair.

      Proposed:

      Step 3

      Discussion after the OPM

      Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM will be circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing
      list for a period. This is known as the “comment period”. The duration of the “comment period” will
      be not shorter than four weeks and not longer than eight weeks. The decision to extend more than
      four weeks, including the duration of the extension, will be determined at the sole discretion of
      the SIG Chair.

      Step 4

      No change.

      Actual:

      Step 5

      Endorsement from the EC

      The EC, in their capacity as representatives of the membership, will be asked to endorse the consensus
      proposals arising from the OPM and the SIG mailing lists for implementation at the next EC meeting. In
      reviewing the proposals for implementation, the EC may refer proposals back to the SIG for further
      discussion with clearly stated reasons. As per the APNIC By-laws, the EC may, at its discretion, refer
      the endorsement to a formal vote of adoption by the APNIC members.

      Proposed:

      Step 5

      Endorsement from the EC

      The EC, in their capacity as representatives of the membership, will be asked to endorse the consensus
      proposals arising from the OPM and the SIG mailing lists for implementation at the next EC meeting. In
      reviewing the proposals for implementation, the EC may refer proposals back to the SIG for further
      discussion with clearly stated reasons. As per the APNIC By-laws, the EC may, at its discretion, refer
      the endorsement to a formal vote of adoption by the APNIC members.

      Appeals process

      In case of disagreement during the process, any member of the community must initially bring the matter
      to the mailing list for consideration by the Chairs.

      Alternately, if any member considers that the Chairs have violated the process or erred in their judgement,
      they may appeal their decision through the EC, which must decide the matter within a period of four weeks.

      5. Advantages / Disadvantages

      Advantages:

      Fulfilling the objectives above indicated and making sure that there is no
      discrimination with community members that aren’t able to travel.

      Disadvantages:

      None foreseen.

      6. Impact on resource holders

      None.

      7. References

      http://www.lacnic.net/679/2/lacnic/policy-development-process
      https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642


      Sumon, Ching-Heng and Bertrand
      APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


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