Re: [sig-policy] prop-134-v001: Secretariat impact assessment

  • To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, mailman_SIG-policy <sig-policy@apnic.net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-134-v001: Secretariat impact assessment
  • From: Srinivas Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
  • Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 06:53:42 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: apnic.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; apnic.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=apnic.net;
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.net
  • In-reply-to: <3856441B-29EA-4CE5-92FE-DC475FE4FAA4@consulintel.es>
  • 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: <3856441B-29EA-4CE5-92FE-DC475FE4FAA4@consulintel.es>
  • Thread-index: AQHV5GnklDCYB4nFlEiH7bvqUfBw7KgdYsqA
  • Thread-topic: [sig-policy] prop-134-v001: Secretariat impact assessment

    • Hi Jordi,
      
      Thanks for the new version. We've updated the proposal page. SIG Chairs 
      will soon post version 2 of this proposal to the mailing list for 
      community discussion.
      
      Regards
      Sunny
      
      On 16/02/2020 12:38 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
      > Hi Sunny, all,
      > 
      > I agree that we can improve this adding an explicit reference to the RFC7282, and making clear that the policy expires if not updated by the next OPM, so we don't depend on exact 6-months period, which not necessary will match from meeting to meeting.
      > 
      > So, I think we should make a new version using the following text changes:
      > 
      > Previous version:
      > 
      > Step 2: Consensus Determination
      > Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” as observed by the Chairs.
      > 
      > Consensus is determined first considering the SIG mailing list, other
      > electronic means, and the SIG session, and afterwards at the Member Meeting.
      > 
      > 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, restarting the discussions with the community.
      > 
      > 
      > New version:
      > 
      > Step 2: Consensus Determination
      > Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” (RFC7282) as observed by the Chairs.
      > 
      > Consensus is determined first considering the SIG mailing list, other
      > electronic means, and the SIG session, and afterwards at the Member Meeting.
      > 
      > If there is no consensus on a proposal, the authors can decide to
      > withdraw it.
      > 
      > Otherwise, the proposal will be considered as expired by the next OPM, unless a new version
      > is provided, restarting the discussions with the community.
      > 
      > 
      > Please, update the version number of this proposal with these changes, which I guess clears your impact assessment as well.
      > 
      > Regards,
      > Jordi
      > @jordipalet
      >   
      >   
      > 
      > El 14/2/20 14:47, "Srinivas Chendi" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de sunny@apnic.net> escribió:
      > 
      >      Dear SIG members,
      >      
      >      Here is the Secretariat impact assessment for proposal “prop-134-v001:
      >      PDP Update” and the same is also published at:
      >      
      >           https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-134/
      >      
      >      Staff comments
      >      --------------
      >      
      >      No foreseen change on APNIC Services procedures or systems as a result
      >      of this policy proposal.
      >      
      >      For reference and definition of “Rough Consensus” suggest adding RFC
      >      7282 to the proposed text.
      >      
      >      It is difficult to keep track of proposals “expire in six months” may be
      >      change to “expire at the next OPM”.
      >      
      >      
      >      Technical comments
      >      ------------------
      >      
      >      No comments.
      >      
      >      
      >      Legal comments
      >      --------------
      >      
      >      Given that rough consensus is defined under RFC 7282 - no further comments.
      >      
      >      
      >      Implementation
      >      --------------
      >      
      >      within 3 months.
      >      
      >      
      >      Regards
      >      Sunny
      >      
      >      
      >      On 20/01/2020 10:23 am, Bertrand Cherrier wrote:
      >      > Dear SIG members
      >      >
      >      > The proposal "prop-134-v001: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy SIG
      >      > for review.
      >      >
      >      > (This is a new version of "prop-126" proposal abandoned after APNIC 48
      >      > as it did not reach consensus at APNIC 46, APNIC 47, and APNIC 48.)
      >      >
      >      > It will be presented during the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 49 in
      >      > Melbourne, Australia on Thursday, 20 February 2020.
      >      >
      >      > 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-134
      >      >
      >      > Regards
      >      >
      >      > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
      >      > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
      >      >
      >      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >      >
      >      > prop-134-v001: PDP Update
      >      >
      >      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >      >
      >      > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
      >      > jordi.palet@theipv6company.com <mailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.com>
      >      >
      >      >
      >      >     1. Problem statement
      >      >
      >      > The actual PDP doesn’t support the usage of electronic means to
      >      > “measure” the consensus.
      >      > However, “Confer” is being used. This should be clarified, or otherwise
      >      > the process is not fair (remote participants don’t know about it reading
      >      > the PDP) and can be considered a violation of the PDP itself.
      >      >
      >      > The PDP also don’t have a formal process to withdraw a proposal, and
      >      > doesn’t force the authors to keep editing it according the community
      >      > inputs, or otherwise, allow the SIG chairs to declared it as expired.
      >      >
      >      > Finally, as editorial change, the expression “rough consensus” (RFC7282)
      >      > is used instead of “general agreement”, so it is consistent with the
      >      > actual practice.
      >      >
      >      >
      >      >     2. Objective of policy change
      >      >
      >      > To resolve the issues above indicated.
      >      >
      >      >
      >      >     3. Situation in other regions
      >      >
      >      > The PDP is different in the different RIRs.
      >      >
      >      >
      >      >     4. Proposed policy solution
      >      >
      >      > Actual Text
      >      > 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 Text
      >      > Step 2: Consensus Determination
      >      > Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” as observed by the Chairs.
      >      >
      >      > Consensus is determined first considering the SIG mailing list, other
      >      > electronic means, and the SIG session, and afterwards at the Member Meeting.
      >      >
      >      > 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, restarting the discussions with the community.
      >      >
      >      >
      >      >     5. Advantages / Disadvantages
      >      >
      >      > Advantages:
      >      > Fulfilling the objectives above indicated and making sure that there is
      >      > no formal discrimination with community members that aren’t able to
      >      > travel so they know that they can participate via the Confer or other
      >      > systems developed by the secretariat.
      >      >
      >      > 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
      >      >
      >      > Cordialement,
      >      >
      >      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >      >
      >      > Bertrand Cherrier
      >      > Micro Logic Systems
      >      > https://www.mls.nc
      >      > Tél : +687 24 99 24
      >      > VoIP : 65 24 99 24
      >      > SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min)
      >      >
      >      >
      >      > *              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
      >      >
      >      *              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
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > **********************************************
      > IPv4 is over
      > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
      > http://www.theipv6company.com
      > The IPv6 Company
      > 
      > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
      > 
      > 
      >