Hi Hiroki,
Thanks for reading the proposal and providing inputs!
I understand your point. However, this is actually showing somehow, the need
for this proposal change.
If in addition of measuring the consensus in the meeting, the PDP also measures
the consensus in the list (step 2 in my proposal), now you will have more time
to agree in your Japanese community.
You can collect your feedback since day one, provide it during the meeting, but
also keep doing so, and provide it in the mailing list. Both inputs will have
to be evaluated by the co-chairs to look for the "overall" consensus and be
fair with those that can't come to meetings, need more time to consider the
proposal (sometimes text is not sufficient, and the presentation in the meeting
may clarify many aspects and different point views).
You don't think so ?
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de Hiroki Kawabata
<kawab...@nic.ad.jp>
Fecha: jueves, 16 de agosto de 2018, 20:33
Para: SIG policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update
Hi Jordi-san,
I have one comment about your proposal.
In Japanese community, JPOPF Steering team will hold the meeting to collect
opinions
from community member after all proposals are published.
The aim of this meeting is to understand proposals in Japanese and get more
feedbacks in Japanese.
If the dead-line will be changed one week before the start of the OPM,
we cannot get enough time to collect opinion from our community.
In this time, The submission deadline is Friday, 3 August.
and Policy SIG Chair's announce on SIG Mailing list is Wednesday 8 August.
If this is one week before the start of the OPM, do we have enough time to
discuss on Mailing list?
I think that there are not.
Regards,
Hiroki
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
Date: Thu Aug 16 2018 21:51:25 GMT+0900
> 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
>
* 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
