[sig-policy] New version - prop-134-v002: PDP Update

  • To: "Policy SIG" <sig-policy@apnic.net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] New version - prop-134-v002: PDP Update
  • From: "Bertrand Cherrier" <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc>
  • Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:31:54 +1100
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.net
  • Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mandalore.mynet.nc CC63CA2115A
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=micrologic.nc; s=DBA9ABE2-4214-11E9-8955-8616915190C0; t=1581838315; bh=xmM4K1oxGKkNaWd9a3Qly1yfwcbDpk0ydyUe1j68vMc=; h=From:To:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=EB1zWF1PhvGapcGJ95OZoYQfswVeTDrlls0D7yloFZyeZApfQufHvIPf0xm0i0GfA X3CdNvrrrz/2iuuTeiXP+y10oEr1fLKrvTXwlGDoMXpk+4Sjh6lUBWyJEiI6Rwi3Es FGxVu4n+bjbXVivDWPYmbkFjzt8S4BvS4a0iONyann9wMWcSG8iCMM/fcTDO5zVbJr BGJO5JbguEN2C9tN/sBye3156ecy6ujYOuv9sLi2xUIvrB0QHf/szz+DbsmRO8qBza pftl9mA5pNotFR0JVCsx9BBeub5N4FRwZOAm6++22O117ktgWPlRfv0HtsLiG/WW9x 80JRjUb+t0ovA==
  • 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 Chairs,

      Here is the draft email for new version of prop-134. Please review/edit
      and post to mailing list soon.

      Subject: prop-134-v002: PDP Update


      Dear SIG members

      A new version of the proposal "prop-134-v002: PDP Update" has been sent
      to the Policy SIG for review.

      Information about earlier versions is available from:


      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-134-v002: PDP Update

      Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez

      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” (RFC 7282) as observed by the

      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.

      5. Advantages / Disadvantages

      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.

      None foreseen.

      6. Impact on resource holders


      7. References