Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update
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 discussion. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 12/9/19 13:03, "Amrita" escribió: Hi 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. Regards Amrita 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 To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 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 wrote: Hi Owen, El 27/8/19 8:15, "Owen DeLong" escribió: On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: 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 region. 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 that. Yes,
Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update
Hi 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. Regards Amrita 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 To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 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 wrote: Hi Owen, El 27/8/19 8:15, "Owen DeLong" < <mailto:o...@delong.com> o...@delong.com> escribió: On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < <mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote: 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 region. 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 that. 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 circumstance. 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, frankly. 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) po
Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update
Dear Saturo, See responses below, in-line. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 2/9/19 17:37, "Satoru Tsurumaki" escribió: Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team. I would like to share a feedback in our community for prop-126, based on a meeting we organized on 21th Aug to discuss these proposals. Many participants expressed a supporting for the proposal with reasons that discussions in the mailing list will be reflected more than ever, also with the reason that expiring policy of the proposal at Step 4 sound good both author and community. And a few question were expressed as below: - In Step2, it seems difficult to understand the process. Which is correct? 1. Consensus is determined... Firstly SIG mailing list/other electronic means/the SIG session and then Member Meeting 2. Consensus is determined... Firstly SIG mailing list/other electronic means and then SIG Session Afterward Member Meeting I think it is clear from my text that I was referring to 1 above. However, if you think that there is something that can be improved in the way is written, I believe is still possible at this time, as it doesn't change the "intended meaning". An alternative way to write the same is: "Consensus is determined considering: - the SIG mailing list - other electronic means - and the SIG session Afterwards it must be re-confirmed at the Member Meeting. So basically, what I'm doing in STEP 2 is just to clarify that formally the mailing list+other electronics means (such as CONFER)+the SIG meeting are considered as part of the chair's decision-making process. - What is "other electronic means" ? Is it CONFER? If it is CONFER, I am concerned that CONFER does not know the exact number of people who voted. Today it is CONFER, tomorrow can be something different or something else. This is provided by the staff. I don't want to mention CONFER, just to keep the door open to other means that we may agree to have in the future (so we don't need to change it with every possible electronic mean). I don't think is a matter of "votes", because consensus is not about "how many", but if there is a strong opposition with objections raised and not resolved vs strong support. Best Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki JPOPF-ST 2019年8月9日(金) 3:14 Sumon Ahmed Sabir : > > > Dear SIG members > > A new version of the proposal "prop-126: PDP Update" has been sent to > the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in > Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019. > > Information about earlier versions is available from: > https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-126/ > > 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-126-v004: PDP Update > > -- > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez >jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com > > > 1. Problem Statement > > > With its requirement of face-to-face participation at the OPM, the current > PDP might – at least partially – be the cause of the low levels of > community > participation in the process by using the policy mailing list. > > This proposal would allow an increased participation, by explicitly > considering > the comments in the list for the consensus determination. So, > consensus would > be determined balancing the mailing list and the forum, and would therefore > increase community participation. > > Even if this is actually done by the chairs, it is not part of the > actual PDP, > and thus constitutes a very clear and explicit violation of the PDP and > the risk > is that anyone from the community could appeal any decision based on that. > > Finally, it completes the PDP by adding a simple mechanism for solving > disagreements > during an appeals phase and an improved definition of ‘consensus’, as > well as a > complete definition of the “consensus” and “last-call”. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > - > > To allow that consensus is determined formally looking at the opinions > of community >
Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update
ink 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 text. necessarily a bad thing. It depends on the reasons for the apathy. If the apathy is because nothing bad enough to motivate people to action is happening, then apathy is not the worst possible outcome. If the apathy is because people feel disenfranchised and unable to make a difference, then the cause of the apathy must desperately be addressed with all due haste. I do not believe that people are disenfranchised in the APNIC region or that anything horrible is happening in the APNIC policy arena. I’m far less active on the APNIC list(s) than ARIN and AfriNIC. I’m more active in the ARIN region because it is my home region and because I (currently) have a leadership role there. I’m more active in AfriNIC because I believe there are more problems there and policy development there needs all the help it can get. I participate in APNIC when I feel I have something useful to contribute to the discussion. Otherwise, I mostly lurk. I’d probably watch LACNIC if I spoke better spanish. I’ve never actually subscribed to the RIPE PDP list. RIPE seems to be doing what RIPE does well enough without my contribution. Owen Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 23/8/19 15:48, "Javed Khan" escribió: I do not support this proposal as I have complete trust in the current APNIC PDP and this community. Kind regards Javed Khan MSCE and CCSP From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM To: Policy SIG Subject: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal "prop-126: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019. Information about earlier versions is available from: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-126/ 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-126-v004: PDP Update -- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com 1. Problem Statement With its requirement of face-to-face participation at the OPM, the current PDP might – at least partially – be the cause of the low levels of community participation in the process by using the policy mailing list. This proposal would allow an increased participation, by explicitly considering the comments in the list for the consensus determination. So, consensus would be determined balancing the mailing list and the forum, and would therefore increase community participation. Even if this is actually done by the chairs, it is not part of the actual PDP, and thus constitutes a very clear and explicit violation of the PDP and the risk is that anyone from the community could appeal any decision based on that. Finally, it completes the PDP by adding a simple mechanism for solving disagreements during an appeals phase and an improved definition of ‘consensus’, as well as a complete definition of the “consensus” and “last-call”. 2. Objective of policy change - To allow that consensus is determined formally looking at the opinions of community members that are not able to travel to the meetings and facilitating a simple method for appeals. 3. Situation in other regions - The PDP is different in the different RIRs. This proposal is similar to the RIPE PDP, possibly the region with the broadest participation in its policy proposal discussions, although there are certain differences such as the mandatory use of the mailing list and the meeting, which is more similar to the PDP at ARIN (another region with broad community participation). LACNIC has recently adopted a similar policy proposal with the same aims.
Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update
Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team. I would like to share a feedback in our community for prop-126, based on a meeting we organized on 21th Aug to discuss these proposals. Many participants expressed a supporting for the proposal with reasons that discussions in the mailing list will be reflected more than ever, also with the reason that expiring policy of the proposal at Step 4 sound good both author and community. And a few question were expressed as below: - In Step2, it seems difficult to understand the process. Which is correct? 1. Consensus is determined... Firstly SIG mailing list/other electronic means/the SIG session and then Member Meeting 2. Consensus is determined... Firstly SIG mailing list/other electronic means and then SIG Session Afterward Member Meeting - What is "other electronic means" ? Is it CONFER? If it is CONFER, I am concerned that CONFER does not know the exact number of people who voted. Best Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki JPOPF-ST 2019年8月9日(金) 3:14 Sumon Ahmed Sabir : > > > Dear SIG members > > A new version of the proposal "prop-126: PDP Update" has been sent to > the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in > Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019. > > Information about earlier versions is available from: > https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-126/ > > 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-126-v004: PDP Update > > -- > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez >jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com > > > 1. Problem Statement > > > With its requirement of face-to-face participation at the OPM, the current > PDP might – at least partially – be the cause of the low levels of > community > participation in the process by using the policy mailing list. > > This proposal would allow an increased participation, by explicitly > considering > the comments in the list for the consensus determination. So, > consensus would > be determined balancing the mailing list and the forum, and would therefore > increase community participation. > > Even if this is actually done by the chairs, it is not part of the > actual PDP, > and thus constitutes a very clear and explicit violation of the PDP and > the risk > is that anyone from the community could appeal any decision based on that. > > Finally, it completes the PDP by adding a simple mechanism for solving > disagreements > during an appeals phase and an improved definition of ‘consensus’, as > well as a > complete definition of the “consensus” and “last-call”. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > - > > To allow that consensus is determined formally looking at the opinions > of community > members that are not able to travel to the meetings and facilitating a > simple method > for appeals. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > - > > The PDP is different in the different RIRs. This proposal is similar to > the RIPE PDP, > possibly the region with the broadest participation in its policy > proposal discussions, > although there are certain differences such as the mandatory use of the > mailing list and > the meeting, which is more similar to the PDP at ARIN (another region > with broad community > participation). LACNIC has recently adopted a similar policy proposal > with the same aims. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --- > > Current 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. > > New 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. > >
Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update
PDP is a community driven consensus process agreed by the community not by courts nor legal experts. I am confused with your reference to "courts", "ilegal" and "legislation". If the intention here to scare the community then its truly not required. I think under the current PDP the Chairs have the right to make a decision within the scope and principles and rules as agreed by the community. If the Chairs rejected one of your proposal, I'm sure the Chairs would have given you a reason and other options. This is between you and the Chairs. These people are elected by the community and we trust their decision. I strongly oppose for an appeal process. We build the networks without any "appeal" process and so we can also work together to discuss the proposals. J Khan From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: Monday, 26 August 2019 6:05 PM To: Policy SIG Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update 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. 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. 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. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 23/8/19 15:48, "Javed Khan" mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de javedkha...@outlook.com<mailto:javedkha...@outlook.com>> escribió: I do not support this proposal as I have complete trust in the current APNIC PDP and this community. Kind regards Javed Khan MSCE and CCSP From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM To: Policy SIG Subject: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal "prop-126: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019. Information about earlier versions is available from: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-126/ 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-126-v004: PDP Update -- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com<mailto:jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com> 1. Problem Statement With its requirement of face-to-face participation at the OPM, the current PDP might – at least partially – be the cause of the low levels of community participation in the process by using the policy mailing list. This proposal would allow an increased participation, by explicitly considering the comments in the list for the consensus determination. So, consensus would be determined balancing the mailing list and the forum, and would therefore increase community participation. Even if this is actually done by the chairs, it is not part of the actual PDP, and thus constitutes a very clear and explicit violation of the PDP and the risk is that anyone from the community could appeal any decision based on
Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update
> On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > wrote: > > 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. 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 forward. > 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 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. > 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 necessarily a bad thing. It depends on the reasons for the apathy. If the apathy is because nothing bad enough to motivate people to action is happening, then apathy is not the worst possible outcome. If the apathy is because people feel disenfranchised and unable to make a difference, then the cause of the apathy must desperately be addressed with all due haste. I do not believe that people are disenfranchised in the APNIC region or that anything horrible is happening in the APNIC policy arena. I’m far less active on the APNIC list(s) than ARIN and AfriNIC. I’m more active in the ARIN region because it is my home region and because I (currently) have a leadership role there. I’m more active in AfriNIC because I believe there are more problems there and policy development there needs all the help it can get. I participate in APNIC when I feel I have something useful to contribute to the discussion. Otherwise, I mostly lurk. I’d probably watch LACNIC if I spoke better spanish. I’ve never actually subscribed to the RIPE PDP list. RIPE seems to be doing what RIPE does well enough without my contribution. Owen > > Regards, > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > > > > El 23/8/19 15:48, "Javed Khan" <mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de > javedkha...@outlook.com <mailto:javedkha...@outlook.com>> escribió: > > I do not support this proposal as I have complete trust in the current APNIC > PDP and this community. > > Kind regards > Javed Khan > MSCE and CCSP > > From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net > on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir > Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM > To: Policy SIG > Subject: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update > > > Dear SIG members > > A new version of the proposal "prop-126: PDP Update" has been sent to > the Policy SIG for review. > &
Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update
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. 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. 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. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 23/8/19 15:48, "Javed Khan" escribió: I do not support this proposal as I have complete trust in the current APNIC PDP and this community. Kind regards Javed Khan MSCE and CCSP From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM To: Policy SIG Subject: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal "prop-126: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019. Information about earlier versions is available from: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-126/ 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-126-v004: PDP Update -- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com 1. Problem Statement With its requirement of face-to-face participation at the OPM, the current PDP might – at least partially – be the cause of the low levels of community participation in the process by using the policy mailing list. This proposal would allow an increased participation, by explicitly considering the comments in the list for the consensus determination. So, consensus would be determined balancing the mailing list and the forum, and would therefore increase community participation. Even if this is actually done by the chairs, it is not part of the actual PDP, and thus constitutes a very clear and explicit violation of the PDP and the risk is that anyone from the community could appeal any decision based on that. Finally, it completes the PDP by adding a simple mechanism for solving disagreements during an appeals phase and an improved definition of ‘consensus’, as well as a complete definition of the “consensus” and “last-call”. 2. Objective of policy change - To allow that consensus is determined formally looking at the opinions of community members that are not able to travel to the meetings and facilitating a simple method for appeals. 3. Situation in other regions - The PDP is different in the different RIRs. This proposal is similar to the RIPE PDP, possibly the region with the broadest participation in its policy proposal discussions, although there are certain differences such as the mandatory use of the mailing list and the meeting, which is more similar to the PDP at ARIN (another region with broad community participation). LACNIC has recently adopted a similar policy proposal with the same aims. 4. Proposed policy solution --- Current 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 after
Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update
I do not support this proposal as I have complete trust in the current APNIC PDP and this community. Kind regards Javed Khan MSCE and CCSP From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM To: Policy SIG Subject: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal "prop-126: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019. Information about earlier versions is available from: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-126/ 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-126-v004: PDP Update -- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com<mailto:jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com> 1. Problem Statement With its requirement of face-to-face participation at the OPM, the current PDP might – at least partially – be the cause of the low levels of community participation in the process by using the policy mailing list. This proposal would allow an increased participation, by explicitly considering the comments in the list for the consensus determination. So, consensus would be determined balancing the mailing list and the forum, and would therefore increase community participation. Even if this is actually done by the chairs, it is not part of the actual PDP, and thus constitutes a very clear and explicit violation of the PDP and the risk is that anyone from the community could appeal any decision based on that. Finally, it completes the PDP by adding a simple mechanism for solving disagreements during an appeals phase and an improved definition of ‘consensus’, as well as a complete definition of the “consensus” and “last-call”. 2. Objective of policy change - To allow that consensus is determined formally looking at the opinions of community members that are not able to travel to the meetings and facilitating a simple method for appeals. 3. Situation in other regions - The PDP is different in the different RIRs. This proposal is similar to the RIPE PDP, possibly the region with the broadest participation in its policy proposal discussions, although there are certain differences such as the mandatory use of the mailing list and the meeting, which is more similar to the PDP at ARIN (another region with broad community participation). LACNIC has recently adopted a similar policy proposal with the same aims. 4. Proposed policy solution --- Current 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. New 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. == Current Text Step 3: Discussion after the OPM Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AMM will be circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing list for a period. This is known as the “comment period”. The duration of the “comment period” will be not shorter than four weeks and not longer than eight weeks. The decision to extend more than four weeks, including the duration of the extension, will be determined at the sole discretion of the SIG Chair. New Text Step 3: Last-Call Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AMM will be circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing during four weeks. The purpose of the “last-call” is to provide the community with a brief and final opportunity to comment on the proposal, especially those who didn’t earlier. Consequently, during this period editorial comments may be submitted and, exceptionally, objectio
