Re: [sig-policy] Criteria of resubmission the proposal

  • To: Sumon Ahmed Sabir <>, "Tsurumaki, Satoru" <>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Criteria of resubmission the proposal
  • Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:33:32 +1100
  • Cc: sig-policy <>
  • Delivered-to:
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1581989630; x=1582594430;; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References: In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type; bh=9auYskt/3GOA9N9vScEXYj m0ttf6nCSod1lOLblvyu8=; b=IIMrM08hq0LZ4JvRzu0GfbSG2t4BXFr1EoWgOQ MSU5sWubcgAhOY1t0UuzSz/pT1IFiZIwFmyUaWrHkS0SEF1t0gPdOdvGdRsRwdl9 cXgZtwlpxn13cphr930UL1g2zWtA40KFp0dqOmjG8/jTuq11XFa9+qYxgwiHDMTE VVGAg=
  • In-reply-to: <>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <> <>
  • Thread-topic: [sig-policy] Criteria of resubmission the proposal
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/

    • Hi Sumon, Satoru-San, all,


      Let me also provide my point of view on this:

      1. If you look at the videos of the previous presentations, there were some people in support of those policies. In fact, I used the videos and all the inputs (as in the list, unfortunatelly, basically there were only inputs from yourself). In fact, for the sub-assigment clarification, the proposal advanced from the 2 previous APNIC meetings thanks to the inputs from our colleagues from India. And again, from the inputs from Aftab, it advanced once more to the actual version, highly simplified.
      2. I’ve said this before. The PDP doesn’t state anything about if the chairs can “abandon” a policy proposal. In fact, this may be not the right term. I read abandon as “I abandon”, not somebody “abandon for me”, which will be “force abandon” or something-like. I understand that the chairs are following guidelines, that were developed by the existing chairs but not the community, 2 decades ago, in the scope of many SIGs. The PDP and all related to the PDP is developed by the community as a whole, not a subset of. Furthermore, the PDP doesn’t have *ANY* link, decided by  the community, to the guidelines. We should update this. Just consider how negative/surprising is for anyone (specially newcommers), to read the PDP and then see that “something else is behind the PDP”.
      3. We have seen this lots of times. A proposal doesn’t reach consensus the 1st time. Because there are no inputs in the list, in can’t get improved with the community inputs. It doesn’t passes the 2nd time, but it reach consensus the 3rd time. Another proposal takes 5 rounds. Another proposal reach consensus on the 1st round. Another proposal fails during 2 rounds, but then after 1 year of pause, it comes back and reach consensus. This is *normal* and it should be like that. Different proposals need more or less discussion, more or less inputs, if the inputs don’t come in the list, then it takes more cyles. How you put the limit in the number of times it can come back before it gets “abandon” ? You can’t. If the authors are getting the inputs, you should allow them to continue. It is a different case, if the authors ignore the inputs from the community. If you have 3 inputs *only* (just an example) 2 against – 1 in favour, this is not sufficient to say “abandon”. PDP is a slow process because it looks for consensus. This is completely normal. If authors don’t follow the community inputs and there are newer proposals or more important ones, the chairs have the way to de-prioritize them to the last part of the agenda, in case there is no sufficient time. Why “abandon” after 3 times, and not 2, or 5? It is impossible to decide upfront, each proposal has different complexity and may take more or less time. I’ve seen proposals that take 3 years to reach consensus (and they reached it), it is just fine! Other proposals didn’t reach consensus the first time and it was obvious, even for the authors that there is no point to continue. But even if there is a small fraction of the community that was supporting a proposal, I don’t see the point to abandon it after “n” times.


      Besides those specific proposals, I think this discussion is very important and interesting to have.








      El 18/2/20 11:44, "Sumon Ahmed Sabir" < en nombre de> escribió:


      Dear Satoru-San and all,


      Thank you very much for sharing your feedbacks  and raising your concerns.


      I do agree that the concern is valid and it may repeat similar discussions and we will be discussing similar issues.


      From SIG Chair Point of view, we have abandoned the earlier proposals as it didn't reached consensus in three consecutive meetings and there were merely any support for the proposal.


      You are correct that if a proposal is abandoned then there will be no further discussions about the proposals.


      But if proposer feels that it is important for community and needed to be discussed again and comes with a new proposal, as Policy Chair, it is our duty to accommodate that as long as it falls under PDP guidelines. 


      And lastly it does not happen very often. So let us see how APNIC Community think about the proposal in next three days.


      best regards,


      Sumon Ahmed Sabir

      Chair, Policy SIG








      On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 3:13 PM Tsurumaki, Satoru <> wrote:

      Dear SIG Chair and all,

      I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.

      I would like to share key feedback in our community for criteria for
      adopting the proposal based on a meeting we organised on 4th Feb.

      First of all, it should be pointed out that there is no intention to
      limit the proposals where the problem statement or proposal has

      Japanese community concerned that it might repeated similar
      discussions if the resubmission of a proposal that was previously

      My understanding is that "abandon" is a proposal that chair has
      decided that no further discussions will be made in the community, is
      this correct?
      If it is, I believe chair should indicate to the community why it was
      allowed to resubmit.
      And It might also need to define the criteria of resubmission.

      Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team
      *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      sig-policy mailing list

      * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list

      IPv4 is over
      Are you ready for the new Internet ?
      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.