Re: [sig-policy] Final editorial comments on draft document
Hello Everyone !
For a start, I wish you all an excellent year for 2021
Jordi, bellow you will find the Policy SIG Chairs reply :
Le 06/01/2021 à 07:02, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
Hi Sunny, all,
I've several points in addition to my document comments. I can't use the comments platform, which by the way, is absolutely unpractical (not to say something really more negative), because a) you need to be on-line, which may not be the case, b) you don't create a public discussion on the inputs - which is critical for the bottom-up consensus, c) you don't know if the community is really following it or not, d) it doesn't follow the PDP itself!. So, I will summarize here my more critical inputs.
The comment platform is for final call for editorial comments, the
discussions are on the mailing list, as for being on-line, well, to send
an email you have to be as well :-) ... again this was an editorial
comment period, the discussion and consensus process was before.
I've raised those several times, but it seems that it was ignored.
1) The actual PDP doesn't have any binding to the SIG guidelines, so *legally speaking* the SIG guidelines aren't applicable. Is like if tomorrow we make another document that we call "Policy SIG meeting guidelines" and we try to bypass the PDP adopting it as a separate document, not using the PDP, and/or there is no PDP modification to bind that document.
In the APNIC region, the SIG Guidelines apply to all the SIGs as agreed
by this community, the PDP is a process that applies only to the Policy
SIG, because we are the only ones doing policies this part does not need
to be included in the SIG Guidelines, we are bound by those documents,
and no one goes without the other.
2) In your email you indicate that consensus has already been reached. In what meeting? If this is not a PDP document (SIG guidelines), is not bound to the PDP, etc., how come consensus has been reached? Could you provide a step by step consensus process for this document? Again, are we trying to bypass the PDP and inventing a different consensus path for *separate documents* ?
The meeting was the one you couldn't attend because of the time zone
difference, the central time zone for APNIC region is UTC+8. Discussions
happened at APNIC 50 and at the online community consultation. Around 30
participated the online community consultation and agreed with these
recommendations.
3) So clearly, I can only object to this, it is an illegal act against the community and every community member to try to bypass our PDP, and if this goes on, it will be against ICANN ICP-2 and the rules that established APNIC and we will need to appeal that.
4) I fully agree that the PDP needs to be improved, and that's why I've submitted policy proposals for that, but *we need to do it in the correct way* so only can be done following the PDP.
This review process was requested by the APNIC EC and Policy SIG Chairs,
based on some of the confusions around your proposals, to make the PDP
document current as per the current practices. Once this recommendations
are published, we welcome you to submit proposals to further improve the
PDP.
5) The PDP must be self-inclusive. It looks nice to have a "5 sentences" PDP, but it has been demonstrated that it is just an illusion that doesn't work. At a minimum, any additional document should be bound to the PDP and follow the same process.
Again, in the APNIC region, the PDP and SIG Guidelines go together. A
reference in the PDP to SIG guidelines is necessary for the function of
Policy SIG.
6) This is the most important point, which invalidates all the process: According to the PDP there is NO authorization for editorial changes. So that means that even *editorial changes* need a complete pass thru the PDP. I'm not saying this is optimal, and I will prefer that the secretariat can actually do editorial review of documents, *however* my wish and your intent aren't part of the actual PDP. So, if we want to make editorial changes this way, we need *FIRST* to have a policy proposal adopted via the PDP to add that prerogative to the secretariat. By the way, how we decide what is editorial and what not? This must be clarified to allow that "functionality" (for example, only grammar, typos, etc. or also text clarification that doesn't change the intended original meaning).
Have a look here :
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-development/editorial-policy/
(§3 and 5)
7) Please see also my email on September 9 (2020), which I don't recall has been answered (clearly no answer doesn't show ANY consensus):https://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2020/09/msg00002.html
Here it is (the link is also and the end of yours) :
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2020/09/msg00003.html
Inputs to the document:
1. Introduction
This text is drastically changing the PDP it is not *editorial*. It introduces an *artificial link* to the SIG guidelines which, as I already mention above, *are not part of the PDP* and can't be, unless that document pass as a policy proposal via the PDP itself. Accepting that is like accepting that a government change a law (in a democratic country) without nobody know it, and without the voting in the parliament, so basically a crime.
The community have been informed, at APNIC 50 and again at the online
community consultation, and I can tell that the Parliament was there !
The review report was presented and provided to the community.
Did you report this crime to the authorities ?
The actual PDP only talks about meetings and lists. As I've commented other times, we have been using electronic means, which I agree, but changing this in the PDP is NOT an editorial comment. It needs to pass via the PDP. In fact, the demonstration of why that change is NOT an editorial comment, is that in one of my proposals, that change *never reached consensus*, even if the chairs asked just for that point (isolated from the rest of the proposal). So how come we can now say that it is an editorial comment and bypass the community decision *in the PDP* that they don't agree with that change?
Again the editorial comment period is the fourth step of the PDP
Using the expression "anyone with an interest in the management and use of Internet number resources ..." is creating a big problem vs the actual wording, because the actual wording clearly means that if someone is interested in improving the PDP (not and Internet number resource), will not be able to do participate, or saying it in another way, again this is not an editorial change, because we are using a subterfuge to restrict the PDP to be updated in the future, which creates a big trouble!
This has been long discussed in the meeting, the way I read it, to
manage the numbers, you need to be able to create and modify policies
(and that include the Policy Development Process)
How come RIR, ICANN and PTI employees can't participate? I've never seen that in any RIR. Usually they don't do, or they speak up clearly indicating if they are speaking as employees of those organizations or as community members. This is completely broken! NOBODY can restrict an employee of a RIR to say "in their personal capacity" what they think about any policy proposal! Again, not an editorial change.
They can't participate in the consensus : RIR, ICANN, and PTI
Secretariat staff do not participate in the consensus process but are
there to provide clarifications if required by the community. They do
not actually take part in the Chairs call for consensus.
2. Scope
Again, we are using a subterfuge, really nasty, to add "appendices" to the PDP, bypassing the PDP ...
3.1. Policy proposal
One more nasty subterfuge. The actual text allows sending a policy proposal to the list and the chairs. The new text only allows to do that to the chars. This is clearly *not* and editorial change.
The new text also indicates that the chairs may decide to not accept it. HOW COME????? This is a crime. We can't accept this change as an editorial change!!!! This is a complete change to the PDP. What happens in an extreme case if the chairs don't like something (personal of business reasons)? The community don't have a chance!
4. Proposal process
Again *not an editorial change* making the timing at the discretion of the chairs ("Proposal Deadline they set"). Once more, I've tried to change that in a policy proposal, the community didn't liked, so now we use an "editorial" change to make it in a different way?
The PDP is not the SIG Guidelines, Did you report this crime to the
authorities ?
Step 2 and 4. Consensus/Confirming consensus
I don't read the same "substantial" and "major", and in any case, both are completely subjective. We need a real consensus definition, citing the relevant RFC7282, as other RIRs do. In any case, this is NOT an editorial change. If we want to use "major objections", we need to define it, but bear in mind that this is not so easy, *everybody has a different subjective view on that*, that's why the best is to use the RFC.
Withdraw and abandon is NOT THE SAME. This is not an editorial change.
The first announce to the list was last November, it is not an editorial
change, it was the editorial comment period.The changes were already
accepted by this community, as above.
5. Appendices/templates
While I agree that the template is good, the rest of the text, is not, and definitively is NOT an editorial change. We are making lots of new definitions that *aren't* in the actual PDP. It is a crime to consider all that as editorial changes. UNNAPCEPTABLE.
The community had the opportunity to comment on the recommended changes.
We received great support to accept these recommendations. We Chairs
believe a consensus was reached.
As the final editorial comment period was closed on 6 Janurary, we will
now ask the Secretariat to publish the final PDP document. Once the
updated PDP document is published, we invite you and others to submit
proposals to further improve the PDP.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Regards,
Bertrand and Ching-Heng
Policy SIG Chairs
Cordialement,
--
Bertrand Cherrier
____________________
Micro Logic Systems
https://www.mls.nc
Tél : +687 24 99 24
VoIP : 65 24 99 24
SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min)