[sig-policy] prop-126: PDP Update returned to author

  • To: "SIG policy" <sig-policy@apnic.net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-126: PDP Update returned to author
  • From: "Bertrand Cherrier" <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc>
  • Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:38:28 +1100
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=micrologic.nc; s=mail; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From; bh=w6Ag1ITwroVWqFArHIXhoVDyjMqDsV+4AfzS9LdQn7E=; b=F+FvjS3BwqueOB9rvkJc41aV1QFtlPvBxOtduaTNsjd0Zdq0JweQYxvoald3IwL4RcHSljozozFVMsh0sncihAa/0vcxhrnCEAVGAq6+1EoX0UDe0ylLE071voD3kwQ7TTW7bVlchIuRlKuWRoaaxoF7pp1B5DxXdblB+ITdi/I=;
  • 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>

    • Dear colleagues

      Version 2 of prop-126: PDP Update, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 46 Open Policy Meeting.

      The Policy SIG Chairs returned the proposal to the author for further
      discussion with the community and invited the author to submit an amended version based on the community's feedback.

      Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
      links to previous versions are available at:

      https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-126/
      

      Regards
      Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng


      prop-126-v002: 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 one-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.

      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

      Cordialement,


      Bertrand Cherrier
      Administration Systèmes - R&D
      Micro Logic Systems
      b.cherrier@micrologic.nc
      https://www.mls.nc
      Tél : +687 24 99 24
      VoIP : 65 24 99 24
      SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min)