Hello Jordi, Thanks for your comments. We will get back to you soon.
Regards Sunny -----Original Message----- From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> Sent: Wednesday, 6 January 2021 6:02 AM To: Srinivas Chendi <su...@apnic.net>; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Final editorial comments on draft document Hi Sunny, all, I've several points in addition to my document comments. I can't use the comments platform, which by the way, is absolutely unpractical (not to say something really more negative), because a) you need to be on-line, which may not be the case, b) you don't create a public discussion on the inputs - which is critical for the bottom-up consensus, c) you don't know if the community is really following it or not, d) it doesn't follow the PDP itself!. So, I will summarize here my more critical inputs. I've raised those several times, but it seems that it was ignored. 1) The actual PDP doesn't have any binding to the SIG guidelines, so *legally speaking* the SIG guidelines aren't applicable. Is like if tomorrow we make another document that we call "Policy SIG meeting guidelines" and we try to bypass the PDP adopting it as a separate document, not using the PDP, and/or there is no PDP modification to bind that document. 2) In your email you indicate that consensus has already been reached. In what meeting? If this is not a PDP document (SIG guidelines), is not bound to the PDP, etc., how come consensus has been reached? Could you provide a step by step consensus process for this document? Again, are we trying to bypass the PDP and inventing a different consensus path for *separate documents* ? 3) So clearly, I can only object to this, it is an illegal act against the community and every community member to try to bypass our PDP, and if this goes on, it will be against ICANN ICP-2 and the rules that established APNIC and we will need to appeal that. 4) I fully agree that the PDP needs to be improved, and that's why I've submitted policy proposals for that, but *we need to do it in the correct way* so only can be done following the PDP. 5) The PDP must be self-inclusive. It looks nice to have a "5 sentences" PDP, but it has been demonstrated that it is just an illusion that doesn't work. At a minimum, any additional document should be bound to the PDP and follow the same process. 6) This is the most important point, which invalidates all the process: According to the PDP there is NO authorization for editorial changes. So that means that even *editorial changes* need a complete pass thru the PDP. I'm not saying this is optimal, and I will prefer that the secretariat can actually do editorial review of documents, *however* my wish and your intent aren't part of the actual PDP. So, if we want to make editorial changes this way, we need *FIRST* to have a policy proposal adopted via the PDP to add that prerogative to the secretariat. By the way, how we decide what is editorial and what not? This must be clarified to allow that "functionality" (for example, only grammar, typos, etc. or also text clarification that doesn't change the intended original meaning). 7) Please see also my email on September 9 (2020), which I don't recall has been answered (clearly no answer doesn't show ANY consensus): https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.apnic.net%2Fmailing-lists%2Fsig-policy%2Farchive%2F2020%2F09%2Fmsg00002.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7C26e6fb2fb6f441fbf4b308d8b1b4c984%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637454737957500599%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=cpcsReCu28JAG7PYjvnQbLxrRy4vxRDVgs2I83vjQK4%3D&reserved=0 Inputs to the document: 1. Introduction This text is drastically changing the PDP it is not *editorial*. It introduces an *artificial link* to the SIG guidelines which, as I already mention above, *are not part of the PDP* and can't be, unless that document pass as a policy proposal via the PDP itself. Accepting that is like accepting that a government change a law (in a democratic country) without nobody know it, and without the voting in the parliament, so basically a crime. The actual PDP only talks about meetings and lists. As I've commented other times, we have been using electronic means, which I agree, but changing this in the PDP is NOT an editorial comment. It needs to pass via the PDP. In fact, the demonstration of why that change is NOT an editorial comment, is that in one of my proposals, that change *never reached consensus*, even if the chairs asked just for that point (isolated from the rest of the proposal). So how come we can now say that it is an editorial comment and bypass the community decision *in the PDP* that they don't agree with that change? Using the expression "anyone with an interest in the management and use of Internet number resources ..." is creating a big problem vs the actual wording, because the actual wording clearly means that if someone is interested in improving the PDP (not and Internet number resource), will not be able to do participate, or saying it in another way, again this is not an editorial change, because we are using a subterfuge to restrict the PDP to be updated in the future, which creates a big trouble! How come RIR, ICANN and PTI employees can't participate? I've never seen that in any RIR. Usually they don't do, or they speak up clearly indicating if they are speaking as employees of those organizations or as community members. This is completely broken! NOBODY can restrict an employee of a RIR to say "in their personal capacity" what they think about any policy proposal! Again, not an editorial change. 2. Scope Again, we are using a subterfuge, really nasty, to add "appendices" to the PDP, bypassing the PDP ... 3.1. Policy proposal One more nasty subterfuge. The actual text allows sending a policy proposal to the list and the chairs. The new text only allows to do that to the chars. This is clearly *not* and editorial change. The new text also indicates that the chairs may decide to not accept it. HOW COME????? This is a crime. We can't accept this change as an editorial change!!!! This is a complete change to the PDP. What happens in an extreme case if the chairs don't like something (personal of business reasons)? The community don't have a chance! 4. Proposal process Again *not an editorial change* making the timing at the discretion of the chairs ("Proposal Deadline they set"). Once more, I've tried to change that in a policy proposal, the community didn't liked, so now we use an "editorial" change to make it in a different way? Step 2 and 4. Consensus/Confirming consensus I don't read the same "substantial" and "major", and in any case, both are completely subjective. We need a real consensus definition, citing the relevant RFC7282, as other RIRs do. In any case, this is NOT an editorial change. If we want to use "major objections", we need to define it, but bear in mind that this is not so easy, *everybody has a different subjective view on that*, that's why the best is to use the RFC. Withdraw and abandon is NOT THE SAME. This is not an editorial change. 5. Appendices/templates While I agree that the template is good, the rest of the text, is not, and definitively is NOT an editorial change. We are making lots of new definitions that *aren't* in the actual PDP. It is a crime to consider all that as editorial changes. UNNAPCEPTABLE. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 10/12/20 7:02, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net en nombre de su...@apnic.net> escribió: ________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Review: APNIC Policy Development Process (PDP) ________________________________________________________________________ APNIC seeks final editorial comments on the draft changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process. This document has been amended to reflect the Policy Development Process (PDP) review and recommendations as presented to the community at APNIC 50 and the Policy SIG online community consultation. The draft document is available at: https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fcommunity%2Fpolicy%2Fdrafts%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C26e6fb2fb6f441fbf4b308d8b1b4c984%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637454737957500599%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=bV%2F5db0%2F1zfc8BppbQCO3hoPJKT0szSKG0r5b0MYm6o%3D&reserved=0 Nature of the document review ----------------------------- This is an editorial review only. Consensus has already been reached on these changes. Therefore, during the comment period, interested parties may: - Object to the draft document on the grounds that it does not properly reflect the consensus decision reached in the Policy Review Process - Suggest improvements of any aspect of the document - Request that an additional call for comment be made to allow more consideration of substantial revisions Deadline for comments --------------------- Comments are requested by Wednesday, 06 January 2021 at: https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fcommunity%2Fpolicy%2Fdrafts&data=04%7C01%7C%7C26e6fb2fb6f441fbf4b308d8b1b4c984%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637454737957500599%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=0Z6OL9TFi73zqBiB4FnHt7rZBH84jM8kKwx29lQu8ME%3D&reserved=0 ________________________________________________________________________ APNIC Secretariat secretar...@apnic.net Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C26e6fb2fb6f441fbf4b308d8b1b4c984%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637454737957500599%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=9KmQyIgj%2BoxpqAsQRUTqwt9k6fuH%2BRfUOkEr90nDazU%3D&reserved=0 ________________________________________________________________________ * 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=04%7C01%7C%7C26e6fb2fb6f441fbf4b308d8b1b4c984%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637454737957500599%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=IEEna9HaG0Miuv5ASYPqkwtMYFFSnP%2F9xeCy%2FwWaTpE%3D&reserved=0 ********************************************** 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=04%7C01%7C%7C26e6fb2fb6f441fbf4b308d8b1b4c984%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637454737957500599%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=v3yUBrpOLMgcI5yDLBP0mj6vQrdFyrDY375eK%2BW3n24%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://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
