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

  • To: Policy SIG <sig-policy@apnic.net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New version - prop-134-v002: PDP Update
  • From: "Tsurumaki, Satoru" <stsuruma@bbix.net>
  • Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:24:55 +1100
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bbix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KZUcXkXnuZ8UK6YBGqmrwVkWq2bZKBbE6/4HF8eLHbk=; b=dMV3VUshhric3LqGwMuceHkbcn7hST+sYZE9Em1qBVt6KmipfNcMZbJMtWSf9zqLF7 auNHsAiMp39lh/9CbH/wT83Gu+CsoRHbVSHyUmtiPUaBTTZWe5aP9tIrqDZSTk+sBt5c uElfE7OnUAIafrhFb2DVX9dUHEyZ1h3hD6JZYGHYXh0j5NSpFUtkkHYzaNlWc2JNTNPU ZoNb87IncXlZ2NUhRJ+R7EtnpiP4TwiMKIlnshHL0UQG88DCW8L1hmv6I8/PRMazaBKy 1RuBOHIPHJPEPIbW8cjKFzqA8H+mCY47CSCkG0roho33sX3e99rmPlegtoV+2CxRJ/Gb mjYg==
  • In-reply-to: <55C2FABA-ECCD-479F-97F2-F4321DEDF4AC@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: <55C2FABA-ECCD-479F-97F2-F4321DEDF4AC@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-134,
      based on a meeting we organised on 4th Feb to discuss these proposals.
      
      We discussed this proposal dividing into 3 parts below.
      
      1. Wording of "rough consensus"
      Many opposing opinions were expressed.
       - Rough consensus seems something that almost attendees agrees, but
      the consensus in OPM is a consensus that the chair decides based on
      grounds, so the term rough consensus may be different.
      
      2. electronic means
      Many opposing opinions were expressed about electronic means.
       - I support using the electronic system like a CONFER to gauge
      support for a policy proposal, but oppose voting by using current
      electronic system because of lack of identification.
       - The specification is unclear about introducing an electronic
      statement of intention.
       - It is necessary to use a means such as a registered name to avoid
      the organized vote.
      
      3. Expiring the proposal
      Many supporting opinions were expressed about expiring the proposal.
      In Japan, the same policy already make a consensus at last Japan Open
      policy Meeting.
      
      Regards,
      Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team
      
      2020年2月16日(日) 18:32 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc>:
      >
      > 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
      >
      > Thanks
      > Sunny
      >
      > ________________________________
      >
      > 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:
      >
      > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-134
      >
      > 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
      > 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” (RFC 7282) 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.
      >
      > 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
      >
      > *              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
      
      
      
      -- 
      --
      Satoru Tsurumaki
      BBIX, Inc