Hi Hiroki,
Thanks for your response.
Regarding the AMM "double-consensus". My persective is that policies affect
"all" the community, not just the members.
So why then the AMM has the right to "change" the community decision?
In fact, the AMM has already a way to "protect" the community if something is
really broken, which is the EC endorsement (the EC is elected by the members,
right?).
In fact this is the way it happens in all the other RIRs. Never the "members"
can have more "power" than the community as a whole.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de Hiroki Kawabata
<kawab...@nic.ad.jp>
Fecha: martes, 4 de septiembre de 2018, 21:44
Para: SIG policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update
Hi Jordi-san,
Thank you for your comment. (sorry for my late response)
> 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.
I think that it is better to confirm consensus on the mailing list.
** the step3(you proposed)
===================================================================
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.
===================================================================
Because we do not have enough time to discuss before the OPM,
even if the proposal does not reach consensus at OPM,
I think that it is better to collect opinions on the mailing list.
On the other hand, according to the step3 which you proposed,
I understand the AMM will be removed. The opportunity to discuss
about policy proposal and express opinions as APNIC member will be lost.
Depending on the policy proposal, it may be necessary to judge
as APNIC member. We think that it is necessary to be left process
to confirm consensus at AMM.
Regards,
Hiroki
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
Date: Fri Aug 17 2018 11:48:13 GMT+0900
> 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
**********************************************
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
