*Dear Colleagues,I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-126,based on a meeting we organised on 22nd Aug to discuss these proposals.*
*Many supporting opinions were expressed about the point of confirming consensus on ML.A question of doubt and concern was expressed, in that it discontinues AMM consensus and changes the proposal's deadline.(Consensus on ML) - I support to take a consensus confirmation with ML instead of AMM. - I support on the point of view that this proposal will expand the opportunities to the remote participant to discussing about proposal. - For consensus confirmation in ML, only proposal which reached consensus in OPM are eligible and the proposal which not reached consensus are not eligible. it is not good to lose the opportunity to state a opinion at the ML about the proposal which not reach consensus.(Consensus at AMM) - The meaning of taking consensus in AMM is for members to clarify the pros and cons about APNIC’s implementation. This is not a simple substitution from AMM to ML. - In addition to the past, how about added a confirmation of consensus in ML ?(Change of deadline of proposal) - For the purpose of this proposal, it is better to have a longer online discussion period. Why shorten the deadline by proposal? The proposer should clarify the intention of wanting to move the deadline.(Other) - It is better to be able to measure the effect after change* Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki 2018-08-10 12:42 GMT+11:00 Bertrand Cherrier <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 > 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/docume > nts/policy-development/development-process/#4 > > 1. 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 > 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
