Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
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.palet@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
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-bounces@lists.apnic.net sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir sasabir@gmail.com Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM To: Policy SIG sig-policy@apnic.net 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.palet@theipv6company.commailto:jordi.palet@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
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" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de javedkhankh@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-bounces@lists.apnic.net sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir sasabir@gmail.com Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM To: Policy SIG sig-policy@apnic.net 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.palet@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
********************************************** 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.
On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@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.
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" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de javedkhankh@outlook.com mailto:javedkhankh@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-bounces@lists.apnic.net sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir sasabir@gmail.com Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM To: Policy SIG sig-policy@apnic.net 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/ 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.palet@theipv6company.com mailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
- 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”.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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”.
- 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.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
http://www.lacnic.net/679/2/lacnic/policy-development-process http://www.lacnic.net/679/2/lacnic/policy-development-process https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 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
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Owen,
El 27/8/19 8:15, "Owen DeLong" owen@delong.com escribió:
On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@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.
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.
I really think is very bad not having it.
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.
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.
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.
Agree, but we need to understand that for sure there is a jurisdiction. And in my knowledge (not being a lawyer), any process that doesn’t have an implicit appeal process has lot of chances to be defeated in *any* jurisdiction. It is much better to avoid that, right ?
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
I’m not talking here about any specific policy proposal, as said before, this happened by chance. The inclusion of the appeal process in this PDP update was done one year in advance this situation, so not related to it.
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.
Agree, and I talked to Paul about it. If I recall correctly, he only suggested to go to the open forum, not him, not the EC. However, we don’t have time allocated for it.
And furthermore, I don’t think it is savvy if this happens, that we must wait 6 months for discussing it in a meeting.
If you read the PDP, there is no definition of the scope and there is a contradiction in the text (https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-devel...), as it says:
“Policy proposals are proposals which have been officially submitted for the consideration of the APNIC community …” and then “A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to the SIG Chair”, while the *actual process* is sending to the chairs, so they decide if is being sent to the list or not!
Should anyone ignore the actual process and just send the proposals to the list?
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
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" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de javedkhankh@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-bounces@lists.apnic.net sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir sasabir@gmail.com Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM To: Policy SIG sig-policy@apnic.net 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.palet@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
********************************************** 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
********************************************** 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.
I took the liberty of reformatting the message into a consistent font and size.
On Sep 9, 2019, at 02:41 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es wrote:
Hi Owen,
El 27/8/19 8:15, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com mailto:owen@delong.com> escribió:
On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es mailto:jordi.palet@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) 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.
Agree, but we need to understand that for sure there is a jurisdiction. And in my knowledge (not being a lawyer), any process that doesn’t have an implicit appeal process has lot of chances to be defeated in *any* jurisdiction. It is much better to avoid that, right ?
I do not believe you are correct about that. Again, I am not convinced that that law exists in any jurisdiction within the APNIC region either as written law or as case law or precedent. Unless and until you can provide such an example, I think your argument here is quite hollow.
Please don’t confuse what I said above about the US and litigation as an example here. I believe that the ARIN appeal process serves as a low-cost way for those that disagree with the AC to present their argument without it having to go to litigation. I do not see a likelihood of an APNIC policy co-chair decision going to litigation.
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
I’m not talking here about any specific policy proposal, as said before, this happened by chance. The inclusion of the appeal process in this PDP update was done one year in advance this situation, so not related to it.
That’s fine, but you brought up “now even more relevant”, so I figured I’d point out that your example of “more relevant” is not as relevant as you seem to imply.
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.
Agree, and I talked to Paul about it. If I recall correctly, he only suggested to go to the open forum, not him, not the EC. However, we don’t have time allocated for it.
In which case, posting your grievance to the list and listening to what the community has to say about it seems like a perfectly reasonable approach.
And furthermore, I don’t think it is savvy if this happens, that we must wait 6 months for discussing it in a meeting.
We can agree to disagree.
If you read the PDP, there is no definition of the scope and there is a contradiction in the text (https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-devel... https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-development/development-process/), as it says: “Policy proposals are proposals which have been officially submitted for the consideration of the APNIC community …” and then “A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to the SIG Chair”, while the *actual process* is sending to the chairs, so they decide if is being sent to the list or not!
Actually, as I understand the process (and as I have used it in the past), you are welcome to send your proposal either to the chairs (who will post it to the list if they believe it is within scope) or to the chairs and the list. In fact, you are free to post ideas about proposals and get feedback on the development of the proposal prior to submission on the list as well.
Should anyone ignore the actual process and just send the proposals to the list?
I don’t think that constitutes ignoring the process. I think that is within the list charter and is not an abuse of the list, so why not?
Where is it written that the actual process precludes you from sending your proposal to the list prior to it being accepted by the co-chairs?
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
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.
I disagree. You, yourself (in text you removed from the quoted text) advocated making APNIC process more like RIPE because you think the RIPE process gets better participation and other favorable comments you’ve made about the RIPE process in the past.
No matter what you do, there will always be some possible different interpretations of existing text. This happens even with professional lawmakers and lawyers writing it.
There is no such thing as an unambiguous human language.
Owen
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-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@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 jordi.palet@consulintel.es wrote:
Hi Owen,
El 27/8/19 8:15, "Owen DeLong" < mailto:owen@delong.com owen@delong.com> escribió:
On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es jordi.palet@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) 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.
Agree, but we need to understand that for sure there is a jurisdiction. And in my knowledge (not being a lawyer), any process that doesn’t have an implicit appeal process has lot of chances to be defeated in *any* jurisdiction. It is much better to avoid that, right ?
I do not believe you are correct about that. Again, I am not convinced that that law exists in any jurisdiction within the APNIC region either as written law or as case law or precedent. Unless and until you can provide such an example, I think your argument here is quite hollow.
Please don’t confuse what I said above about the US and litigation as an example here. I believe that the ARIN appeal process serves as a low-cost way for those that disagree with the AC to present their argument without it having to go to litigation. I do not see a likelihood of an APNIC policy co-chair decision going to litigation.
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
I’m not talking here about any specific policy proposal, as said before, this happened by chance. The inclusion of the appeal process in this PDP update was done one year in advance this situation, so not related to it.
That’s fine, but you brought up “now even more relevant”, so I figured I’d point out that your example of “more relevant” is not as relevant as you seem to imply.
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.
Agree, and I talked to Paul about it. If I recall correctly, he only suggested to go to the open forum, not him, not the EC. However, we don’t have time allocated for it.
In which case, posting your grievance to the list and listening to what the community has to say about it seems like a perfectly reasonable approach.
And furthermore, I don’t think it is savvy if this happens, that we must wait 6 months for discussing it in a meeting.
We can agree to disagree.
If you read the PDP, there is no definition of the scope and there is a contradiction in the text ( https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-development/development-process/ https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-devel...), as it says:
“Policy proposals are proposals which have been officially submitted for the consideration of the APNIC community …” and then “A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to the SIG Chair”, while the *actual process* is sending to the chairs, so they decide if is being sent to the list or not!
Actually, as I understand the process (and as I have used it in the past), you are welcome to send your proposal either to the chairs (who will post it to the list if they believe it is within scope) or to the chairs and the list. In fact, you are free to post ideas about proposals and get feedback on the development of the proposal prior to submission on the list as well.
Should anyone ignore the actual process and just send the proposals to the list?
I don’t think that constitutes ignoring the process. I think that is within the list charter and is not an abuse of the list, so why not?
Where is it written that the actual process precludes you from sending your proposal to the list prior to it being accepted by the co-chairs?
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
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.
I disagree. You, yourself (in text you removed from the quoted text) advocated making APNIC process more like RIPE because you think the RIPE process gets better participation and other favorable comments you’ve made about the RIPE process in the past.
No matter what you do, there will always be some possible different interpretations of existing text. This happens even with professional lawmakers and lawyers writing it.
There is no such thing as an unambiguous human language.
Owen
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" amritachoudhury8@gmail.com 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-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@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 jordi.palet@consulintel.es wrote:
Hi Owen,
El 27/8/19 8:15, "Owen DeLong" owen@delong.com escribió:
On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@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) 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.
Agree, but we need to understand that for sure there is a jurisdiction. And in my knowledge (not being a lawyer), any process that doesn’t have an implicit appeal process has lot of chances to be defeated in *any* jurisdiction. It is much better to avoid that, right ?
I do not believe you are correct about that. Again, I am not convinced that that law exists in any jurisdiction within the APNIC region either as written law or as case law or precedent. Unless and until you can provide such an example, I think your argument here is quite hollow.
Please don’t confuse what I said above about the US and litigation as an example here. I believe that the ARIN appeal process serves as a low-cost way for those that disagree with the AC to present their argument without it having to go to litigation. I do not see a likelihood of an APNIC policy co-chair decision going to litigation.
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
I’m not talking here about any specific policy proposal, as said before, this happened by chance. The inclusion of the appeal process in this PDP update was done one year in advance this situation, so not related to it.
That’s fine, but you brought up “now even more relevant”, so I figured I’d point out that your example of “more relevant” is not as relevant as you seem to imply.
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.
Agree, and I talked to Paul about it. If I recall correctly, he only suggested to go to the open forum, not him, not the EC. However, we don’t have time allocated for it.
In which case, posting your grievance to the list and listening to what the community has to say about it seems like a perfectly reasonable approach.
And furthermore, I don’t think it is savvy if this happens, that we must wait 6 months for discussing it in a meeting.
We can agree to disagree.
If you read the PDP, there is no definition of the scope and there is a contradiction in the text (https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-devel...), as it says:
“Policy proposals are proposals which have been officially submitted for the consideration of the APNIC community …” and then “A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to the SIG Chair”, while the *actual process* is sending to the chairs, so they decide if is being sent to the list or not!
Actually, as I understand the process (and as I have used it in the past), you are welcome to send your proposal either to the chairs (who will post it to the list if they believe it is within scope) or to the chairs and the list. In fact, you are free to post ideas about proposals and get feedback on the development of the proposal prior to submission on the list as well.
Should anyone ignore the actual process and just send the proposals to the list?
I don’t think that constitutes ignoring the process. I think that is within the list charter and is not an abuse of the list, so why not?
Where is it written that the actual process precludes you from sending your proposal to the list prior to it being accepted by the co-chairs?
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
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.
I disagree. You, yourself (in text you removed from the quoted text) advocated making APNIC process more like RIPE because you think the RIPE process gets better participation and other favorable comments you’ve made about the RIPE process in the past.
No matter what you do, there will always be some possible different interpretations of existing text. This happens even with professional lawmakers and lawyers writing it.
There is no such thing as an unambiguous human language.
Owen
********************************************** 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.
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-bounces@lists.apnic.net sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Sent: Monday, 26 August 2019 6:05 PM To: Policy SIG sig-policy@apnic.net 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" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de javedkhankh@outlook.commailto:javedkhankh@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-bounces@lists.apnic.net sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir sasabir@gmail.com Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM To: Policy SIG sig-policy@apnic.net 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.palet@theipv6company.commailto:jordi.palet@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
********************************************** 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.
Hi Javed,
Anything we do (all) in our personal and professional lives, is subjected to laws.
Any organization rules, is bound to laws, we like it or not.
Clearly, we can’t say in a policy, if we don’t like a guy, we can discriminate him and not provide him resources, or allow him to come to meetings, or whatever. Those are very obvious silly examples, just to provide an idea of what I mean.
I’m sorry, but even chairs I’m sure try their best, they can make errors, and the community in a bottom-up approach, must be able to resolve it.
Opposing to an appeal process is precisely saying “go to courts”, which I think is what any community want to avoid.
Please, see also my previous email on this. There is no way, in the PDP, the chairs can oppose because they believe is “out-of-scope”. This is broken and we must fix it.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 29/8/19 3:19, "Javed Khan" javedkhankh@outlook.com escribió:
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-bounces@lists.apnic.net sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Sent: Monday, 26 August 2019 6:05 PM To: Policy SIG sig-policy@apnic.net 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" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de javedkhankh@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-bounces@lists.apnic.net sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir sasabir@gmail.com Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM To: Policy SIG sig-policy@apnic.net 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.palet@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
********************************************** 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.
********************************************** 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.
Activity Summary
- 1469 days inactive
- 1469 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 5 participants
- 9 comments