> On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Javed,
>  
> I don’t agree, let me explain why.
>  
> The current process only talks about the meeting and the chairs have clearly 
> indicated that they take in consideration the list and the confer. Anyone 
> from the community that dislikes a consensus/non-consensus decision, could 
> create a trouble even in courts, because we are accepting consensus from 
> sources not documented in the PDP. Rewording it resolves the problem.
>  
> Furthermore, the current process has not an “in-process” appeal procces. This 
> will be ilegal in may legislations (may be only the AU applies, but 
> considering that the community is “the entire Internet”, may be this may be 
> declared illegal in another country where a member decides to claim for). The 
> only way (actually) to appeal, will be going to the courts. We should not aim 
> to that. We should have an internal way.

While there is no appeal process, there are sufficient iterations of approval 
and ratification in the current process that I am not convinced an appeal 
process is necessary.

Calling out the (remote) possibility that some jurisdiction might have a 
problem with it is a red herring and absent actual legal doctrine within the 
APNIC service region, I think it’s a bit far fetched to put that argument 
forward.
 
> This is now even more relevant to be resolved, because by chance, the chairs 
> have denied to accept one of the policy proposal that I’ve submited. They 
> consider it out-of-scope, and my reading is that is in-scope (it has also 
> been submitted and in-scope to RIPE, LACNIC and AFRINIC). I think their 
> decision is wrong and this has many implications that we need to work out. 
> The best avenue is having an “in-house” appeal process, of course.

You’ve been wrong about what should be in-scope before. I won’t cite the 
specifics unless you insist, but you are more than welcome to discuss your 
concerns about it with Paul and/or the EC and I’m certain you will get an 
appropriate response. While it’s not a formal appeal process, I’m certain that 
if they agree with you that the co-chairs erred, they will discuss the 
situation with the co-chairs and come to an appropriate resolution.
 
> Note that I didn’t knew, when I submitted the PDP update (which is a new 
> version from a the previous year proposal), that one of my proposals will be 
> considered by the chairs as out-of-scope. Clarification just so nobody 
> believes that it is related to that rejection! Chairs can confirm that.

I don’t think anyone is questioning your motives, Jordi. We all know that your 
heart is generally in the right place, even if we don’t agree with you about 
your desired actions.

We all know that you like how things work in the RIPE region. I will say that 
I’m not as fond of the RIPE process as you are. I will also point out that 
general apathy is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on the reasons for 
the apathy. If the apathy is because nothing bad enough to motivate people to 
action is happening, then apathy is not the worst possible outcome. If the 
apathy is because people feel disenfranchised and unable to make a difference, 
then the cause of the apathy must desperately be addressed with all due haste. 
I do not believe that people are disenfranchised in the APNIC region or that 
anything horrible is happening in the APNIC policy arena.

I’m far less active on the APNIC list(s) than ARIN and AfriNIC. I’m more active 
in the ARIN region because it is my home region and because I (currently) have 
a leadership role there. I’m more active in AfriNIC because I believe there are 
more problems there and policy development there needs all the help it can get. 
I participate in APNIC when I feel I have something useful to contribute to the 
discussion. Otherwise, I mostly lurk. I’d probably watch LACNIC if I spoke 
better spanish. I’ve never actually subscribed to the RIPE PDP list. RIPE seems 
to be doing what RIPE does well enough without my contribution.

Owen

>  
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> @jordipalet
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> El 23/8/19 15:48, "Javed Khan" <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
> <mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de 
> javedkha...@outlook.com <mailto:javedkha...@outlook.com>> escribió:
>  
> I do not support this proposal as I have complete trust in the current APNIC 
> PDP and this community.
>  
> Kind regards
> Javed Khan
> MSCE and CCSP
>  
> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> 
> on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir <sasa...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM
> To: Policy SIG <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
> Subject: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update
>  
>  
> Dear SIG members
> 
> A new version of the proposal "prop-126: PDP Update" has been sent to 
> the Policy SIG for review.
> 
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in
> Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019.
> 
> Information about earlier versions is available from:
> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-126/ 
> <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-v004: 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
>   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.
> 
> Even if this is actually done by the chairs, it is not part of the 
> actual PDP,
> and thus constitutes a very clear and explicit violation of the PDP and 
> the risk
> is that anyone from the community could appeal any decision based on that.
> 
> 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 formally looking at the opinions 
> of community
> members that are not able to travel to the meetings 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
> ---------------------------
> 
> Current Text    
> 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.
> 
> New Text
> Step 2: Consensus Determination
> Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” as observed by the Chairs.
> 
> Consensus is determined first considering the SIG mailing list, other 
> electronic means,
> and the SIG session, and afterwards at the Member Meeting.
> 
> 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,
> restarting the discussions with the community.
> 
> ==================================================
> 
> Current Text
> 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.
> 
> 
> New Text
> Step 3: Last-Call
> Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AMM 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.
> 
> ===================================================
> 
> Current Text
> Step 4: 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.
> 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.
> 
> 
> New Text
> Step 4: 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.
> 
> ====================================================
> 
> 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 formal 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 
> <http://www.lacnic.net/679/2/lacnic/policy-development-process>
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 
> <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
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/>
> 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 <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 
> <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

Reply via email to