[sig-policy] Final editorial comments on draft document
Editorial Review: SIG Guidelines APNIC seeks final editorial comments on the draft changes to the SIG Guidelines. This document has been amended to reflect the SIG Guidelines review and recommendations as presented to the community at APNIC 50 and the SIG Guidelines online community consultation. The draft document is available at: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/drafts/ 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, 21 April 2021 at: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/drafts 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 http://www.apnic.net * 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
Re: [sig-policy] Final editorial comments on draft document
Hello Everyone ! For a start, I wish you all an excellent year for 2021 Jordi, bellow you will find the Policy SIG Chairs reply : Le 06/01/2021 à 07:02, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit : 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. The comment platform is for final call for editorial comments, the discussions are on the mailing list, as for being on-line, well, to send an email you have to be as well :-) ... again this was an editorial comment period, the discussion and consensus process was before. 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. In the APNIC region, the SIG Guidelines apply to all the SIGs as agreed by this community, the PDP is a process that applies only to the Policy SIG, because we are the only ones doing policies this part does not need to be included in the SIG Guidelines, we are bound by those documents, and no one goes without the other. 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* ? The meeting was the one you couldn't attend because of the time zone difference, the central time zone for APNIC region is UTC+8. Discussions happened at APNIC 50 and at the online community consultation. Around 30 participated the online community consultation and agreed with these recommendations. 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. This review process was requested by the APNIC EC and Policy SIG Chairs, based on some of the confusions around your proposals, to make the PDP document current as per the current practices. Once this recommendations are published, we welcome you to submit proposals to further improve 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. Again, in the APNIC region, the PDP and SIG Guidelines go together. A reference in the PDP to SIG guidelines is necessary for the function of Policy SIG. 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). Have a look here : https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-development/editorial-policy/ (§3 and 5) 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://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2020/09/msg2.html Here it is (the link is also and the end of yours) : https://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2020/09/msg3.html Inputs to the document: 1. Introduction This text is drastically changing the PDP it is not
Re: [sig-policy] Final editorial comments on draft document
Hello Jordi, Thanks for your comments. We will get back to you soon. Regards Sunny -Original Message- From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: Wednesday, 6 January 2021 6:02 AM To: Srinivas Chendi ; 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%2Fmsg2.htmldata=04%7C01%7C%7C26e6fb2fb6f441fbf4b308d8b1b4c984%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637454737957500599%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000sdata=cpcsReCu28JAG7PYjvnQbLxrRy4vxRDVgs2I83vjQK4%3Dreserved=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
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://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2020/09/msg2.html 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
[sig-policy] Final editorial comments on draft document
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://www.apnic.net/community/policy/drafts/ 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://www.apnic.net/community/policy/drafts APNIC Secretariat secretar...@apnic.net Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 AustraliaFax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLDhttp://www.apnic.net * 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
[sig-policy] Final editorial comments on draft document
___ Final editorial comments on draft document ___ APNIC seeks final editorial comments on the following draft changes to the APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies document. The document has been updated to implement one policy proposal reaching consensus at APNIC 43 in Ho Chi Minh City during February 2017. The proposal is: - prop-117: Returned IPv4 address management and Final /8 exhaustion https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-117/ Nature of the document review This is an editorial review only. Consensus has already been reached on these policy changes. Therefore, during the comment period, interested parties may: - Object to the wording provided by the Secretariat - Suggest improvements to any aspect of the document - Request that an additional call for comment be made if substantial revisions are required To view all draft documents, please see: http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/drafts Implementation date -- Following the editorial comment period, the new policies will be implemented on 24 July 2017. Deadline for comments - Your comments are requested before 24 July 2017. Please send your comments to: pol...@apnic.net Kind regards, ___ George Odagi Internet Resource Analyst/Policy Support, APNIC e: hostmas...@apnic.net p: +61 7 3858 3188 f: +61 7 3858 3199 www.apnic.net ___ Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/ * 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
