Hi Jordi,
Thanks for your email. We will soon publish draft documents on the
website and open call for editorial comments for community inputs.
Please allow us sometime as we are currently busy with APNIC 50 conference.
Regards
Sunny
On 9/09/2020 7:19 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi all,
I just saw the video (not able to attend on-line to all the sessions because a very
different time zone all the week), of the Policy SIG session today, and specially the
"PDP and SIG Guidelines Review Report".
I've seen also the diff of both documents.
I feel somehow "guilty" about this topic, as I was the one pushing for several
policy proposals to update the PDP. I think that the pandemic showed us that, without
having the crystal ball, I was right in many points!
Despite that, I'm very happy that finally, there are some action to update
this, however I've doubts about the say to proceed and the proposed changes.
The first big question is that I'm not sure the actual PDP allows "editorial"
changes to be actually made without the community consensus. Also, the associated problem
is to agree in what is and what not an editorial change. Sunny actually said that in his
presentation, confirming that the community owns those documents.
In principle, I could agree that if they are really pure editorial inputs, they
can be changed by the staff, but in any case, this needs to have a pass thru
the community (as mandated by ICP-2 and consensus/bottom-up approach), and I
guess this is the appropriate mailing list for that.
So, I will start by commenting in detail the proposed changes. However, for
that, I need a word or txt version, as I tried to use the html-diff and if I
try to copy one column to paste as text, it actually copies both columns ...
Can the secretariat provide such doc or txt version already? (doc has the advantage to
allow track of changes and comments, I think it is preferable). I know that it is the
plan, but I will like to start now (no reason to delay it), as I've some more
availability now, that will not necessarily be the case in a few days/weeks (I'm strong
believer of "never leave till tomorrow what you can do today").
Further inputs to the today's session:
1) I agree with some of the inputs from Owen. For example, the voting for
elections, I've proposed this actually in other regions. I will prefer 6 months
instead of 60 days. The goal is that only people in the mailing list 6 months
before the month where the elections happens is allowed to vote in order to
avoid possible fraud in elections (100 friends of one of the candidates
registering only for voting).
2) On Gaurab comment, and somehow Aftab. I also think that we will need a PDP change to
allow having OPM by their own (if it becomes necessary for whatever reason, LACNIC PDP
already allows it without changes) and as it was in one of my policy proposals, because
the EC already needs to endorse a proposal, this is sufficient and not AGM approval is
needed, it is a "repetitive" process.
3) Following another Owen input, SIG guidelines don't necessarily need to be the same for
all the SIGs, because there is a substantial difference between the Policy SIG and the
others (the Policy SIG makes policies, not the others). So the PDP should be
self-contained and not depend on "other" SIG guidelines.
Tks!
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cfd9293207fc449a6958f08d854a17a82%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637352400378818613&sdata=%2FtVa43DCAMS3pzy9kuO1EE6HVhMsiwr%2BDpiVCtuHjfI%3D&reserved=0
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
[email protected]
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.apnic.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsig-policy&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cfd9293207fc449a6958f08d854a17a82%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637352400378828608&sdata=WJTRq0oF6BR5I4ZecPNKm1scna5BOlD2xJjAmmavE2U%3D&reserved=0
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
