Dear Saturo,
See responses below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2/9/19 17:37, "Satoru Tsurumaki" <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net en
nombre de satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp> 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 <sasa...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 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.
>
> ==================================================
>
> 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,
> objections if any aspect is discovered that was not considered in the
> discussion prior
> to determining consensus.
>
> Any new objections must also be substantiated and must therefore not be
> based on opinions
> lacking a technical justification.
>
> ===================================================
>
> Current Text
> Step 4: Confirming consensus
> Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial objections
> raised during the
> “comment period”. When the “comment period” has expired, the appropriate
> SIG Chair
> (and Co-chairs) will decide whether the discussions on the mailing list
> represent continued.
> If the Chair (and Co-chairs) observe that there are no “substantial
> objections” to the
> proposed policy, consensus is confirmed and the process continues as
> outlined below in Step 5.
> If it is observed that there have been “substantial objections” raised
> to the proposed policy,
> consensus is not confirmed and the proposal will not be implemented. The
> SIG will then discuss
> (either on the mailing list or in the SIG) whether to pursue the
> proposal or withdraw it.
>
>
> New Text
> Step 4: Confirming consensus
> In a maximum of one week, after the end of the “last-call”, the Chairs
> will confirm whether
> consensus is maintained and the process continues as outlined below in
> Step 5.
>
> If it is observed that there have been “new substantial objections”
> raised to the proposed policy,
> consensus is not confirmed and the proposal will not be implemented.
>
> The authors can decide to withdraw it, or provide a new version,
> following the discussions with
> the community. The proposal will expire in six months, unless a new
> version is provided.
>
> ====================================================
>
> Appeals process
> In case of disagreement during the process, any member of the community
> must initially bring
> the matter to the mailing list for consideration by the Chairs.
>
> Alternately, if any member considers that the Chairs have violated the
> process or erred in their
> judgement, they may appeal their decision through the EC, which must
> decide the matter within a
> period of four weeks.
>
>
> Definition of “Rough Consensus”
> Achieving “rough consensus” does not mean that proposals are voted for
> and against, nor that
> the number of “yes's”, “no's” and “abstentions” – or even participants –
> are counted, but that
> the proposal has been discussed not only by its author(s) but also by
> other members of the community,
> regardless of their number, and that, after a period of discussion, all
> critical technical objections
> have been resolved.
>
> In general, this might coincide with a majority of members of the
> community in favor of the proposal,
> and with those who are against the proposal basing their objections on
> technical reasons as opposed to
> “subjective” reasons. In other words, low participation or participants
> who disagree for reasons that
> are not openly explained should not be considered a lack of consensus.
>
> Objections should not be measured by their number, but instead by their
> nature and quality within the
> context of a given proposal. For example, a member of the community
> whose opinion is against a proposal
> might receive many “emails” (virtual or real) in their support, yet the
> chairs might consider that the
> opinion has already been addressed and technically refuted during the
> debate; in this case, the chairs
> would ignore those expressions of support against the proposal.
>
> For information purposes, the definition of “consensus” used by the RIRs
> and the IETF is actually that of
> “rough consensus”, which allows better clarifying the goal in this
> context, given that “consensus”
> (Latin for agreement) might be interpreted as “agreed by al”’
> (unanimity). More specifically, RFC7282,
> explains that “Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are
> addressed, but not necessarily accommodated.”
>
> Consequently, the use of “consensus” in the PDP, must be interpreted as
> “rough consensus”.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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
* 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
