Hi Amrita,


Thanks a lot for your inputs!


I don’t think the policy can be changed without running thru the PDP. If some 
text is not sufficiently clear, if it is open to different interpretations it 
must be resolved.


It is not approriate, for example, to have a discrepancy on anyone reading the 
manual and the staff having a differente read on the same point. Take my 
example in my proposal for sub-assignment clarification. According to the staff 
a DC or an ISP must use an allocation for providing service to customers. 
However, if we consider the equipments connected as part of the infrastructure, 
anyone reading the same text will agree that it is possible to use an 
assignment as well. This is insane. In IPv4 is not a problem, but in IPv6 to 
make it possible you will provide a single IPv6 address to a complete customer 
network, or a single host that runs multiple VMs, which means, in turn, that 
you will need some kind of crazy non-standard NAT “function”.


Editorial changes are allowed to policy proposals, even after reaching 
consensus, but not once they become implemented, and consequently, once the 
text is already in the policy manual.


Regarding the 4 weeks period. I disagree. The current PDP text allows to have 
it variable, and I think that it must be a very clear and well defined time, so 
it is not possible to be “subjective” or “discriminate” among different policy 
proposal. All them should be treated the same. If a policy proposal in the 
“last-call” period is creating too much conflicting discussion (and specially 
on new aspect not discussed before), it definitively it should be interpreted 
as a sign for the chairs that the consensus is not clear, and probably instead 
of extending that period, should be send back to the list for a complete new 








El 12/9/19 13:03, "Amrita" <amritachoudhu...@gmail.com> escribió:




Had a few comments based on today’s presentation, during the Policy SIG meeting.


>From what I understood making information about policy more easily and readily 
>available does not need a policy change . It  just needs to have existing 
>information more readily and easily available .


Secondly, as shared by many people who commented, the four week input period is 
normally sufficient for most PDPs, therefore it does not need any change . 
Policy timelines are not set for exceptional situations, but for general 
situations. If a policy discussion takes more that 4 weeks , as clarified, the 
chairs can already extend it. Therefore, no changes need to be paid in the 
policy discussion timeline.


However, perhaps the community may want to work on setting up  a mechanism  for 
reviewing  policies that have been implemented. 






From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 4:57 AM
Cc: Policy SIG
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update


I took the liberty of reformatting the message into a consistent font and size.


On Sep 9, 2019, at 02:41 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> 


Hi Owen,



El 27/8/19 8:15, "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> escribió:



On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> 


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.


I don’t agree on that. If today chairs decide that something is out-of-scope, 
nobody has a way to change that decision. There is no way the community will be 
able to discuss the policy proposal as a “policy proposal”, because the chairs 
don’t accept it.


Is there any history of the chairs determining that something was out of scope 
erroneously? To the best of my knowledge, this is not the case in the APNIC 


In the case of ARIN, there is a kind of appeal process with is the “petition 
process”. Here we don’t have that. And is the only region where we don’t have 


Yes, and not once has that appeal process successfully changed an AC out of 
scope ruling. As you are aware, the board upheld the AC decision and you, 
yourself eventually realized that your original proposal as written was, in 
fact, out of scope.


I really think is very bad not having it.


I remain unconvinced of its necessity. The ARIN process is different… It has 
appeals built in at every step of the PDP. ARIN operates in the US which is an 
inherently litigious environment and the appeals serve (IMHO) as a safety valve 
to avoid litigation.

I’m convinced the chairs always act on their best good faith and willingness, 
but this scheme, without a way for the community to oversee the chair’s 
decision is “per se” against the bottom-up approach.


Again, I disagree. If you enough of the community feels that the chairs erred 
in determining a proposal out of scope, I have no doubt that the community is 
capable of communicating this to the chairs and asking them to reconsider their 
decision. Further, I think the chairs would do so in good faith under that 


Just imagine if we have a set of chairs that aren’t really acting in good 
faith, but on personal interest (please understand is just an example, not 
saying at all it is the present case). I don’t think we even have a way to 
remove them.


I think this is unlikely in the APNIC region, and, if it were to happen, 
proposals being declared out of scope becomes the least or our concerns, 


IIRC, there is a process for replacing the co-chairs which seems to me to be 
the better solution to this particular problem. If there is not and you wish to 
propose such a process, I might be more inclined to support something like that.


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 


Agree, but we need to understand that for sure there is a jurisdiction. And in 
my knowledge (not being a lawyer), any process that doesn’t have an implicit 
appeal process has lot of chances to be defeated in *any* jurisdiction. It is 
much better to avoid that, right ?


I do not believe you are correct about that. Again, I am not convinced that 
that law exists in any jurisdiction within the APNIC region either as written 
law or as case law or precedent. Unless and until you can provide such an 
example, I think your argument here is quite hollow.


Please don’t confuse what I said above about the US and litigation as an 
example here. I believe that the ARIN appeal process serves as a low-cost way 
for those that disagree with the AC to present their argument without it having 
to go to litigation. I do not see a likelihood of an APNIC policy co-chair 
decision going to litigation.


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 


I’m not talking here about any specific policy proposal, as said before, this 
happened by chance. The inclusion of the appeal process in this PDP update was 
done one year in advance this situation, so not related to it.


That’s fine, but you brought up “now even more relevant”, so I figured I’d 
point out that your example of “more relevant” is not as relevant as you seem 
to imply.


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.


Agree, and I talked to Paul about it. If I recall correctly, he only suggested 
to go to the open forum, not him, not the EC. However, we don’t have time 
allocated for it.


In which case, posting your grievance to the list and listening to what the 
community has to say about it seems like a perfectly reasonable approach.


And furthermore, I don’t think it is savvy if this happens, that we must wait 6 
months for discussing it in a meeting.


We can agree to disagree.


If you read the PDP, there is no definition of the scope and there is a 
contradiction in the text 
 as it says:

“Policy proposals are proposals which have been officially submitted for the 
consideration of the APNIC community …” and then “A formal proposal paper must 
be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to the SIG Chair”, while the *actual 
process* is sending to the chairs, so they decide if is being sent to the list 
or not!


Actually, as I understand the process (and as I have used it in the past), you 
are welcome to send your proposal either to the chairs (who will post it to the 
list if they believe it is within scope) or to the chairs and the list. In 
fact, you are free to post ideas about proposals and get feedback on the 
development of the proposal prior to submission on the list as well.


Should anyone ignore the actual process and just send the proposals to the list?


I don’t think that constitutes ignoring the process. I think that is within the 
list charter and is not an abuse of the list, so why not?


Where is it written that the actual process precludes you from sending your 
proposal to the list prior to it being accepted by the co-chairs?


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 


Nope. This is not related at all to the RIPE process. What I’m saying is that 
the APNIC process has clear inconsistencies and we should fix them, the same we 
do policy proposals sometimes just to clarify text, not necessarily because 
there is a “big” problem but possible different interpretations of an existing 


I disagree. You, yourself (in text you removed from the quoted text) advocated 
making APNIC process more like RIPE because you think the RIPE process gets 
better participation and other favorable comments you’ve made about the RIPE 
process in the past.


No matter what you do, there will always be some possible different 
interpretations of existing text. This happens even with professional lawmakers 
and lawyers writing it.


There is no such thing as an unambiguous human language.





IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
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

Reply via email to