I support this proposal.

BR//Awal

On 18/1/19 6:23 AM, Bertrand Cherrier wrote:
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> A new version of the proposal "prop-126: PDP Update"
> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
> Information about earlier versions is available from:
>
> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-126/
>
> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>
>   * Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>   * Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>   * What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
>
> Please find the text of the proposal below.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> prop-126-v003: 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 explicitly
> 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.
>
> Finally, it completes the PDP by adding a simple mechanism for
> solving disagreements during an appeals phase and an improved
> definition of ‘consensus’, as well as a complete definition of
> the “consensus” and “last-call”.
>
>
>     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
>
> Section 4. Proposal process
>
> A policy proposal must go through the following chronological steps
> in order to be adopted by APNIC.
>
> Step 1
>
> Actual:
>
> 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:
> 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.
>
> Step 2
>
> Actual:
>
> 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:
> Consensus at the OPM
>
> Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” as observed by the Chairs.
>
> Consensus is determined in both, the SIG session and the SIG mailing
> list, in a maximum of two
> weeks after the OPM.
>
> If there is no consensus on a proposal, the authors can decide to
> withdraw it.
>
> Otherwise, the proposal will expire in six months, unless a new version
> is provided, following
> the discussions with the community.
>
> Step 3
>
> Actual:
> 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:
> Last-Call
>
> Proposals that have reached consensus will be circulated on the
> appropriate SIG mailing during four
> weeks.
>
> The purpose of the “last-call” is to provide the community with a brief
> and final opportunity to
> comment on the proposal, especially those who didn’t earlier.
>
> Consequently, during this period editorial comments may be submitted
> and, exceptionally, objections
> if any aspect is discovered that was not considered in the discussion
> prior to determining consensus.
>
> Any new objections must also be substantiated and must therefore not be
> based on opinions lacking
> a technical justification.
>
> Step 4
>
> Actual:
> Confirming consensus
>
> Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial objections
> raised during the
> “comment period”. When the “comment period” has expired, the appropriate
> SIG Chair
> (and Co-chairs) will decide whether the discussions on the mailing list
> represent continued
> consensus. If the Chair (and Co-chairs) observe that there are no
> “substantial objections”
> to the proposed policy, consensus is confirmed and the process continues
> as outlined below
> in Step 5. If it is observed that there have been “substantial
> objections” raised to the
> proposed policy, consensus is not confirmed and the proposal will not be
> implemented.
> The SIG will then discuss (either on the mailing list or in the SIG)
> whether to pursue
> the proposal or withdraw it.
>
> Proposed:
> Confirming consensus
>
> In a maximum of one week, after the end of the “last-call”, the Chairs
> will confirm whether
> consensus is maintained and the process continues as outlined below in
> Step 5.
>
> If it is observed that there have been “new substantial objections”
> raised to the proposed
> policy, consensus is not confirmed and the proposal will not be
> implemented.
>
> The authors can decide to withdraw it, or provide a new version,
> following the discussions
> with the community. The proposal will expire in six months, unless a new
> version is provided.
>
> Step 5
>
> Actual:
>
> 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:
>
> 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.
>
> Definition of “Rough Consensus”
>
> Achieving “rough consensus” does not mean that proposals are voted for
> and against, nor that the number of
> “yes's”, “no's” and “abstentions” – or even participants – are counted,
> but that the proposal has been
> discussed not only by its author(s) but also by other members of the
> community, regardless of their
> number, and that, after a period of discussion, all critical technical
> objections have been resolved.
>
> In general, this might coincide with a majority of members of the
> community in favor of the proposal,
> and with those who are against the proposal basing their objections on
> technical reasons as opposed to
> “subjective” reasons. In other words, low participation or participants
> who disagree for reasons that
> are not openly explained should not be considered a lack of consensus.
>
> Objections should not be measured by their number, but instead by their
> nature and quality within the
> context of a given proposal. For example, a member of the community
> whose opinion is against a proposal
> might receive many “emails” (virtual or real) in their support, yet the
> chairs might consider that the
> opinion has already been addressed and technically refuted during the
> debate; in this case, the chairs
> would ignore those expressions of support against the proposal.
>
> For information purposes, the definition of “consensus” used by the RIRs
> and the IETF is actually that
> of “rough consensus”, which allows better clarifying the goal in this
> context, given that “consensus”
> (Latin for agreement) might be interpreted as “agreed by al”’
> (unanimity). More specifically, RFC7282,
> explains that “Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are
> addressed, but not necessarily accommodated.”
>
> Consequently, the use of “consensus” in the PDP, must be interpreted as
> “rough consensus”.
>
>
>     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-710
>
>
> *              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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

*              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

Reply via email to