Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-134, based on a meeting we organised on 4th Feb to discuss these proposals. We discussed this proposal dividing into 3 parts below. 1. Wording of "rough consensus" Many opposing opinions were expressed. - Rough consensus seems something that almost attendees agrees, but the consensus in OPM is a consensus that the chair decides based on grounds, so the term rough consensus may be different. 2. electronic means Many opposing opinions were expressed about electronic means. - I support using the electronic system like a CONFER to gauge support for a policy proposal, but oppose voting by using current electronic system because of lack of identification. - The specification is unclear about introducing an electronic statement of intention. - It is necessary to use a means such as a registered name to avoid the organized vote. 3. Expiring the proposal Many supporting opinions were expressed about expiring the proposal. In Japan, the same policy already make a consensus at last Japan Open policy Meeting. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team 2020年2月16日(日) 18:32 Bertrand Cherrier <[email protected]>: > > Dear Chairs, > > Here is the draft email for new version of prop-134. Please review/edit > and post to mailing list soon. > > Subject: prop-134-v002: PDP Update > > Thanks > Sunny > > ________________________________ > > Dear SIG members > > A new version of the proposal "prop-134-v002: PDP Update" has been sent > to the Policy SIG for review. > > Information about earlier versions is available from: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-134 > > 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-134-v002: PDP Update > > ________________________________ > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez > [email protected] > > 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” (RFC 7282) 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. > > 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 > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy -- -- Satoru Tsurumaki BBIX, Inc * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
