Hi Jordi, Thanks for the new version. We've updated the proposal page. SIG Chairs will soon post version 2 of this proposal to the mailing list for community discussion.
Regards Sunny On 16/02/2020 12:38 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Hi Sunny, all, > > I agree that we can improve this adding an explicit reference to the RFC7282, > and making clear that the policy expires if not updated by the next OPM, so > we don't depend on exact 6-months period, which not necessary will match from > meeting to meeting. > > So, I think we should make a new version using the following text changes: > > Previous version: > > 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. > > > New version: > > Step 2: Consensus Determination > Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” (RFC7282) 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 be considered as expired by the next OPM, unless > a new version > is provided, restarting the discussions with the community. > > > Please, update the version number of this proposal with these changes, which > I guess clears your impact assessment as well. > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > El 14/2/20 14:47, "Srinivas Chendi" <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net en > nombre de su...@apnic.net> escribió: > > Dear SIG members, > > Here is the Secretariat impact assessment for proposal “prop-134-v001: > PDP Update” and the same is also published at: > > https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-134/ > > Staff comments > -------------- > > No foreseen change on APNIC Services procedures or systems as a result > of this policy proposal. > > For reference and definition of “Rough Consensus” suggest adding RFC > 7282 to the proposed text. > > It is difficult to keep track of proposals “expire in six months” may be > change to “expire at the next OPM”. > > > Technical comments > ------------------ > > No comments. > > > Legal comments > -------------- > > Given that rough consensus is defined under RFC 7282 - no further > comments. > > > Implementation > -------------- > > within 3 months. > > > Regards > Sunny > > > On 20/01/2020 10:23 am, Bertrand Cherrier wrote: > > Dear SIG members > > > > The proposal "prop-134-v001: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy > SIG > > for review. > > > > (This is a new version of "prop-126" proposal abandoned after APNIC 48 > > as it did not reach consensus at APNIC 46, APNIC 47, and APNIC 48.) > > > > It will be presented during the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 49 in > > Melbourne, Australia on Thursday, 20 February 2020. > > > > 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-134 > > > > Regards > > > > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > prop-134-v001: PDP Update > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez > > jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com <mailto:jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com> > > > > > > 1. Problem statement > > > > The actual PDP doesn’t support the usage of electronic means to > > “measure” the consensus. > > However, “Confer” is being used. This should be clarified, or otherwise > > the process is not fair (remote participants don’t know about it > reading > > the PDP) and can be considered a violation of the PDP itself. > > > > The PDP also don’t have a formal process to withdraw a proposal, and > > doesn’t force the authors to keep editing it according the community > > inputs, or otherwise, allow the SIG chairs to declared it as expired. > > > > Finally, as editorial change, the expression “rough consensus” > (RFC7282) > > is used instead of “general agreement”, so it is consistent with the > > actual practice. > > > > > > 2. Objective of policy change > > > > To resolve the issues above indicated. > > > > > > 3. Situation in other regions > > > > The PDP is different in the different RIRs. > > > > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > > > > Actual 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. > > > > Proposed 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. > > > > > > 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 so they know that they can participate via the Confer or other > > systems developed by the secretariat. > > > > 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 > > > > Cordialement, > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Bertrand Cherrier > > Micro Logic Systems > > https://www.mls.nc > > Tél : +687 24 99 24 > > VoIP : 65 24 99 24 > > SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) > > > > > > * 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.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 https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
