[sig-policy] Version 3 - prop-126 PDP Update

  • To: "Policy SIG" <sig-policy@apnic.net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] Version 3 - prop-126 PDP Update
  • From: "Bertrand Cherrier" <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 11:23:15 +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-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From; bh=MQS0h585xHY3IEMrtnDcW8JLYEMQxiPNy5cH7SRtFYw=; b=OxTDS+tje9BRHwZVdQaMh1XN690Huy24lKYpu7twYJj8rn5R3LfDtr5+vOIaq5MAKsXtjqRRCN7RTYxVy5OGofpnzN9/T4cqQPYEz2Te3c73jxkyiTFh2Q08Rzd+yKSYNn0gO7vFmDdxHUHaWzpME/gUr7bqDUfWMvgTugoD2tA=;
  • 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 SIG members

      A new version of the proposal "prop-126: PDP Update"
      has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

      Information about earlier versions is available from:

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

      You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:

      • Do you support or oppose the proposal?
      • Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
      • What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?

      Please find the text of the proposal below.

      Kind Regards,

      Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
      APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


      prop-126-v003: 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 explicitly
      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.

      Finally, it completes the PDP by adding a simple mechanism for
      solving disagreements during an appeals phase and an improved
      definition of ‘consensus’, as well as a complete definition of
      the “consensus” and “last-call”.

      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

      Section 4. Proposal process

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

      Step 1

      Actual:

      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:
      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.

      Step 2

      Actual:

      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:
      Consensus at the OPM

      Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” as observed by the Chairs.

      Consensus is determined in both, the SIG session and the SIG mailing
      list, in a maximum of two
      weeks after the OPM.

      If there is no consensus on a proposal, the authors can decide to
      withdraw it.

      Otherwise, the proposal will expire in six months, unless a new version
      is provided, following
      the discussions with the community.

      Step 3

      Actual:
      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:
      Last-Call

      Proposals that have reached consensus will be circulated on the
      appropriate SIG mailing during four
      weeks.

      The purpose of the “last-call” is to provide the community with a brief
      and final opportunity to
      comment on the proposal, especially those who didn’t earlier.

      Consequently, during this period editorial comments may be submitted
      and, exceptionally, objections
      if any aspect is discovered that was not considered in the discussion
      prior to determining consensus.

      Any new objections must also be substantiated and must therefore not be
      based on opinions lacking
      a technical justification.

      Step 4

      Actual:
      Confirming consensus

      Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial objections
      raised during the
      “comment period”. When the “comment period” has expired, the appropriate
      SIG Chair
      (and Co-chairs) will decide whether the discussions on the mailing list
      represent continued
      consensus. If the Chair (and Co-chairs) observe that there are no
      “substantial objections”
      to the proposed policy, consensus is confirmed and the process continues
      as outlined below
      in Step 5. If it is observed that there have been “substantial
      objections” raised to the
      proposed policy, consensus is not confirmed and the proposal will not be
      implemented.
      The SIG will then discuss (either on the mailing list or in the SIG)
      whether to pursue
      the proposal or withdraw it.

      Proposed:
      Confirming consensus

      In a maximum of one week, after the end of the “last-call”, the Chairs
      will confirm whether
      consensus is maintained and the process continues as outlined below in
      Step 5.

      If it is observed that there have been “new substantial objections”
      raised to the proposed
      policy, consensus is not confirmed and the proposal will not be implemented.

      The authors can decide to withdraw it, or provide a new version,
      following the discussions
      with the community. The proposal will expire in six months, unless a new
      version is provided.

      Step 5

      Actual:

      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:

      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.

      Definition of “Rough Consensus”

      Achieving “rough consensus” does not mean that proposals are voted for
      and against, nor that the number of
      “yes's”, “no's” and “abstentions” – or even participants – are counted,
      but that the proposal has been
      discussed not only by its author(s) but also by other members of the
      community, regardless of their
      number, and that, after a period of discussion, all critical technical
      objections have been resolved.

      In general, this might coincide with a majority of members of the
      community in favor of the proposal,
      and with those who are against the proposal basing their objections on
      technical reasons as opposed to
      “subjective” reasons. In other words, low participation or participants
      who disagree for reasons that
      are not openly explained should not be considered a lack of consensus.

      Objections should not be measured by their number, but instead by their
      nature and quality within the
      context of a given proposal. For example, a member of the community
      whose opinion is against a proposal
      might receive many “emails” (virtual or real) in their support, yet the
      chairs might consider that the
      opinion has already been addressed and technically refuted during the
      debate; in this case, the chairs
      would ignore those expressions of support against the proposal.

      For information purposes, the definition of “consensus” used by the RIRs
      and the IETF is actually that
      of “rough consensus”, which allows better clarifying the goal in this
      context, given that “consensus”
      (Latin for agreement) might be interpreted as “agreed by al”’
      (unanimity). More specifically, RFC7282,
      explains that “Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are
      addressed, but not necessarily accommodated.”

      Consequently, the use of “consensus” in the PDP, must be interpreted as
      “rough consensus”.

      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-710