Re: [sig-policy] New version - prop-134-v002: PDP Update
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
Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team
2020年2月16日(日) 18:32 Bertrand Cherrier <email@example.com>:
> 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
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> sig-policy mailing list