Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update

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.