Hi Satoru,
Thanks for commenting the proposal.
I realized that there is a mistake, because in step 1, the first sentence talks
about 1 week, while the second still is 4 weeks.
So, the typo is in the 2^nd part.
It should be:
A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to the
SIG Chair one week before the start of the OPM. The proposal must be in text
which clearly expresses the proposal, with explicit mention of any changes
being proposed to existing policies and the reasons for those changes. The
APNIC Secretariat will recommend a preferred proposal format. If the one-week
deadline is not met, proposals may still be submitted and presented for
discussion at the meeting; however, no decision may be made by the meeting
regarding the proposal.
I’ve submitted a new version to update this mistake.
Regards,
Jordi
*De: *<sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki
<satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp>
*Fecha: *jueves, 16 de agosto de 2018, 3:08
*Para: *SIG policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
*Asunto: *Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update
Dear Proposer
I have a question at STEP 1 of your proposal.
It seems to mean that the proposer can submit their proposal
one week before the start of OPM, but there will be no discussion
or consensus call at the OPM if proposer submit the proposal
after four-week deadline.
Is it correct or typo of "one-week deadline" ?
Regards,
Satoru Tusrumaki
2018-08-10 10:42 GMT+09:00 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc
<mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>>:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-126-v001: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy SIG
for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 46 in
Noumea, New Caledonia on Thursday, 13 September 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:
·Do you support or oppose this proposal?
·Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the
community about your situation.
·Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
·Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
·What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-126
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/prop-126-v001.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-126-v001: PDP Update
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com <mailto:jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com>
1. Problem Statement
With its requirement of face-to-face participation at the OPM, the current
PDP
might – at least partially – be the cause of the low levels of community
participation
in the process by using the policy mailing list.
This proposal would allow an increased participation, by considering also
the comments
in the list for the consensus determination. So, consensus would be
determined balancing
the mailing list and the forum, and would therefore increase community
participation.
Further, policy proposals are meant for the community as a whole, and not
only APNIC
members, so this proposal suggest removing the actual “double” consensus
required in
both groups.
Moreover, requiring 4 weeks in advance to the OPM, seems unnecessary as the
consensus
determination can be done in two stages (SIG meeting and list), so the
proposal looks
for just 1 week in advance to the SIG responsible for that proposal.
Finally, it completes the PDP by adding a simple mechanism for solving
disagreements
during an appeals phase and an improved definition of ‘consensus’.
2. Objective of policy change
To allow that consensus is determined also looking at the opinions of
community
members that are not able to travel to the meetings, adjust the time
required
before the relevant SIG to submit the proposals, not requiring “double”
consensus
with the APNIC members and facilitating a simple method for appeals.
3. Situation in other regions
The PDP is different in the different RIRs. This proposal is similar to the
RIPE PDP,
possibly the region with the broadest participation in its policy proposal
discussions,
although there are certain differences such as the mandatory use of the
mailing list
and the meeting, which is more similar to the PDP at ARIN (another region
with broad
community participation). LACNIC has recently adopted a similar policy
proposal with
the same aims.
4. Proposed policy solution
PDP documnet
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-development/development-process/#4
4.Proposal process
A policy proposal must go through the following chronological steps in
order to be
adopted by APNIC.
Actual:
Step 1
Discussion before the OPM
A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to
the SIG Chair
four weeks before the start of the OPM. The proposal must be in text which
clearly
expresses the proposal, with explicit mention of any changes being proposed
to existing
policies and the reasons for those changes. The APNIC Secretariat will
recommend a
preferred proposal format. If the four-week deadline is not met, proposals
may still
be submitted and presented for discussion at the meeting; however, no
decision may
be made by the meeting regarding the proposal. The proposal will need to be
resubmitted
in time for the following meeting if the author wishes to pursue the
proposal.
Proposed:
Step 1
Discussion before the OPM
A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to
the SIG Chair
one week before the start of the OPM. The proposal must be in text which
clearly expresses
the proposal, with explicit mention of any changes being proposed to
existing policies and
the reasons for those changes. The APNIC Secretariat will recommend a
preferred proposal
format. If the four-week deadline is not met, proposals may still be
submitted and presented
for discussion at the meeting; however, no decision may be made by the
meeting regarding the
proposal. The proposal will need to be resubmitted in time for the
following meeting if the
author wishes to pursue the proposal.
Actual:
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:
Step 2
Consensus at the OPM
Consensus is defined as “general agreement” as observed by the Chairs.
Consensus is determined in
both, the SIG session and the SIG mailing list. If there is no consensus on
a proposal, the SIG
(either on the mailing list or at a future OPM) will discuss whether to
amend the proposal or to
withdraw it.
Actual:
Step 3
Discussion after the OPM
Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AMM will be
circulated on the appropriate
SIG mailing list for a period. This is known as the “comment period”. The
duration of the “comment
period” will be not shorter than four weeks and not longer than eight
weeks. The decision to extend
more than four weeks, including the duration of the extension, will be
determined at the sole
discretion of the SIG Chair.
Proposed:
Step 3
Discussion after the OPM
Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM will be circulated on the
appropriate SIG mailing
list for a period. This is known as the “comment period”. The duration of
the “comment period” will
be not shorter than four weeks and not longer than eight weeks. The
decision to extend more than
four weeks, including the duration of the extension, will be determined at
the sole discretion of
the SIG Chair.
Step 4
No change.
Actual:
Step 5
Endorsement from the EC
The EC, in their capacity as representatives of the membership, will be
asked to endorse the consensus
proposals arising from the OPM and the SIG mailing lists for implementation
at the next EC meeting. In
reviewing the proposals for implementation, the EC may refer proposals back
to the SIG for further
discussion with clearly stated reasons. As per the APNIC By-laws, the EC
may, at its discretion, refer
the endorsement to a formal vote of adoption by the APNIC members.
Proposed:
Step 5
Endorsement from the EC
The EC, in their capacity as representatives of the membership, will be
asked to endorse the consensus
proposals arising from the OPM and the SIG mailing lists for implementation
at the next EC meeting. In
reviewing the proposals for implementation, the EC may refer proposals back
to the SIG for further
discussion with clearly stated reasons. As per the APNIC By-laws, the EC
may, at its discretion, refer
the endorsement to a formal vote of adoption by the APNIC members.
Appeals process
In case of disagreement during the process, any member of the community
must initially bring the matter
to the mailing list for consideration by the Chairs.
Alternately, if any member considers that the Chairs have violated the
process or erred in their judgement,
they may appeal their decision through the EC, which must decide the matter
within a period of four weeks.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objectives above indicated and making sure that there is no
discrimination with community members that aren’t able to travel.
Disadvantages:
None foreseen.
6. Impact on resource holders
None.
7. References
http://www.lacnic.net/679/2/lacnic/policy-development-process
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sumon, Ching-Heng and Bertrand
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
*
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* 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
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
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
