Hi again ... see below ...
El 17/2/20 15:28, "Tsurumaki, Satoru" <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net en
nombre de stsur...@bbix.net> escribió:
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.
[Jordi] If you follow the recent email exchange with Adam, I think it is clear
that we are talking of the same (minor objections is consensus, major is not).
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.
[Jordi] We always have said that is not a voting. The proposal is not changing
that! Never has been identified the people even in the meeting room, neither in
the list or confer! The proposal is not changing that.
- The specification is unclear about introducing an electronic
statement of intention.
[Jordi] Today we use confer. It was not used a few years ago. Tomorrow it can
be a different tool to gauge the support. The PDP must have a language that, as
much as possible, is self-adaptative to different tools. If we state "confer"
and tomorrow the secretariat finds a better tool, we need to pass it thru the
PDP. In fact, user confer today is *against* the PDP, because it is not
explicitly supported. Even more than that, today following the PDP the few
inputs in the list (including your emails), can't be formally considered as
part of the consensus decision by the chairs. It makes sense to include that in
the PDP.
- It is necessary to use a means such as a registered name to avoid
the organized vote.
[Jordi] If we decide to use voting, and ask everyone in the meeting room to be
also identified, they we should change our model. Otherwise, the same done in
the meeting room should be done here. For example, if the NIRs are talking from
the inputs provided by their own communities, should also the people
partiticipating in the NIRs also be identified?
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.
[Jordi] Just to make sure I got it correctly. You mean that you support this
specific change as well?
Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team
2020年2月16日(日) 18:32 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>:
>
> 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
> 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” (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
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Satoru Tsurumaki
BBIX, Inc
* 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
