Dear Chairs,
Here is the draft email for new version of prop-134. Please review/edit
and post to mailing list soon.
Subject: prop-134-v002: PDP Update
Thanks
Sunny
-------------
Dear SIG members
A new version of the proposal "prop-134-v002: PDP Update" has been sent
to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-134
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Kind Regards,
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-------------------------------------------------------
prop-134-v002: PDP Update
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
1. Problem statement
-------------------------------------------------------
The actual PDP doesn’t support the usage of electronic means to
“measure” the consensus.
However, “Confer” is being used. This should be clarified, or otherwise
the process is not
fair (remote participants don’t know about it reading the PDP) and can
be considered a
violation of the PDP itself.
The PDP also don’t have a formal process to withdraw a proposal, and
doesn’t force the authors
to keep editing it according the community inputs, or otherwise, allow
the SIG chairs to
declared it as expired.
Finally, as editorial change, the expression “rough consensus” (RFC7282)
is used instead of
“general agreement”, so it is consistent with the actual practice.
2. Objective of policy change
-------------------------------------------------------
To resolve the issues above indicated.
3. Situation in other regions
-------------------------------------------------------
The PDP is different in the different RIRs.
4. Proposed policy solution
-------------------------------------------------------
Actual Text
Step 2: Consensus at the OPM
Consensus is defined as “general agreement” as observed by the Chair of
the meeting. Consensus must
be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting
for the process to continue.
If there is no consensus on a proposal at either of these forums, the
SIG (either on the mailing list
or at a future OPM) will discuss whether to amend the proposal or to
withdraw it.
Proposed Text
Step 2: Consensus Determination
Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” (RFC 7282) as observed by the
Chairs.
Consensus is determined first considering the SIG mailing list, other
electronic means, and the SIG session,
and afterwards at the Member Meeting.
If there is no consensus on a proposal, the authors can decide to
withdraw it. Otherwise, the proposal will
be considered as expired by the next OPM, unless a new version is
provided, restarting the discussions with
the community.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-------------------------------------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objectives above indicated and making sure that there is
no formal discrimination with community
members that aren’t able to travel so they know that they can
participate via the Confer or other systems
developed by the secretariat.
Disadvantages:
None foreseen.
6. Impact on resource holders
-------------------------------------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lacnic.net/679/2/lacnic/policy-development-process
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710
