Hi all,
I just saw the video (not able to attend on-line to all the sessions because a very different time zone all the week), of the Policy SIG session today, and specially the "PDP and SIG Guidelines Review Report".
I've seen also the diff of both documents.
I feel somehow "guilty" about this topic, as I was the one pushing for several policy proposals to update the PDP. I think that the pandemic showed us that, without having the crystal ball, I was right in many points!
Despite that, I'm very happy that finally, there are some action to update this, however I've doubts about the say to proceed and the proposed changes.
The first big question is that I'm not sure the actual PDP allows "editorial" changes to be actually made without the community consensus. Also, the associated problem is to agree in what is and what not an editorial change. Sunny actually said that in his presentation, confirming that the community owns those documents.
In principle, I could agree that if they are really pure editorial inputs, they can be changed by the staff, but in any case, this needs to have a pass thru the community (as mandated by ICP-2 and consensus/bottom-up approach), and I guess this is the appropriate mailing list for that.
So, I will start by commenting in detail the proposed changes. However, for that, I need a word or txt version, as I tried to use the html-diff and if I try to copy one column to paste as text, it actually copies both columns ...
Can the secretariat provide such doc or txt version already? (doc has the advantage to allow track of changes and comments, I think it is preferable). I know that it is the plan, but I will like to start now (no reason to delay it), as I've some more availability now, that will not necessarily be the case in a few days/weeks (I'm strong believer of "never leave till tomorrow what you can do today").
Further inputs to the today's session:
1) I agree with some of the inputs from Owen. For example, the voting for elections, I've proposed this actually in other regions. I will prefer 6 months instead of 60 days. The goal is that only people in the mailing list 6 months before the month where the elections happens is allowed to vote in order to avoid possible fraud in elections (100 friends of one of the candidates registering only for voting).
2) On Gaurab comment, and somehow Aftab. I also think that we will need a PDP change to allow having OPM by their own (if it becomes necessary for whatever reason, LACNIC PDP already allows it without changes) and as it was in one of my policy proposals, because the EC already needs to endorse a proposal, this is sufficient and not AGM approval is needed, it is a "repetitive" process.
3) Following another Owen input, SIG guidelines don't necessarily need to be the same for all the SIGs, because there is a substantial difference between the Policy SIG and the others (the Policy SIG makes policies, not the others). So the PDP should be self-contained and not depend on "other" SIG guidelines.
Tks!
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cfd9293207fc449a6958f08d854a17a82%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637352400378818613&sdata=%2FtVa43DCAMS3pzy9kuO1EE6HVhMsiwr%2BDpiVCtuHjfI%3D&reserved=0
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.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.apnic.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsig-policy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cfd9293207fc449a6958f08d854a17a82%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637352400378828608&sdata=WJTRq0oF6BR5I4ZecPNKm1scna5BOlD2xJjAmmavE2U%3D&reserved=0