Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
Kudos to you Andy, and the chairs, for bringing this to the list.
While I'm sure there was debate between you, I have the feeling that this proposal may be one of those major milestone moments in the life of address policy.
Cheers
Terry
(usual mantra, speaking for myself)
On 09/07/2012, at 3:32 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
> I want to comment on the process of posting of Prop-103. There was
> debate between the Chair and Co-chairs about whether this proposal
> should proceed. I have decided to post the proposal based on the
> following.
>
> The key criteria from the APNIC SIG guidelines are:
>
> The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion at
> the forthcoming SIG session if:
>
> 1) The proposal is out of scope for the SIG
> 2) The proposal is insufficiently developed to be the basis for a
> useful discussion
> 3) The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority
>
> Item 1
> +++++
>
> The guidelines say:
>
> Dissolving a SIG
>
> It is not assumed that a SIG will continue to exist indefinitely. Each
> SIG should periodically review its charter to assess the SIG’s
> usefulness and relevance.
>
> Signs that a SIG may have outlived its purpose include:
>
> - Lack of discussion on the mailing lists for more than one year
> - Lack of response to calls for presentations at SIG sessions
> - Low attendance at SIG sessions
>
> A SIG may be dissolved if the members of the SIG decide that this is
> an appropriate course of action and this recommendation is approved by
> the AMM. Members of the SIG may make the decision to dissolve the SIG
> via the SIG mailing list or at SIG sessions. If a SIG is dissolved,
> all associated mailing lists will be closed for subscription, but the
> public archives will remain on the APNIC website.
>
> ---
>
> It's clear to me that this is a decision that only the SIG can take
> (with agreement from the AMM). This proposal effectively asks for that
> to happen. Note that the criteria are signs and not requirements and
> it's not the role of the Policy SIG chairs to decide what the
> membership of the SIG might think here.
>
> Item 2
> +++++
>
> There was debate among the chairs whether the met this criteria.
>
> I believe it asks us to look at the Policy SIG's processes and
> rationale for existence as the guidelines suggest.
>
> It seems to me that such a discussion may go two ways:
>
> a) the proposal gets rejected out of hand because everything is just
> fine the way it is
> b) the proposal provokes discussion and leads to an improvement in the
> way the Policy SIG operates
>
> Item 3
> +++++
>
> At this stage our agenda isn't so full that we need to reject this proposal.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy