Discarding Dead Global Policies [Was Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Discarding dead policies]

Tue May 22 13:48:27 UTC 2012

On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 12:51 +0400, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
> On 2012-05-22, at 12:07 PM, Mark Elkins wrote:
> 
> > Thus I think we just need policy for part two???
> > 
> > Adiel, in your conclusion, you say "The status 'Approved' should stay
> > until the proposal is withdrawn by the authors" and I think that is part
> > of the problem. If authors withdrew dead policies, we would not be
> > talking about this problem. I think authors assume that there is some
> > sort of cleanup of dead policies - therefore someone (PDP Chairs?) needs
> > to declare dead policies officially dead. As I suggested - the PDP
> > Chairs could raise 'dead' policies and (with consensus) ask the
> > community to discard them.
> 
> Got it. Then I guess the Chairs have to take certain steps to declare it "dead".
> 
> 1. Actively contact the author(s) to check what is their intention and seek 
>     their feeling about the survival of the policy in it current form (the form 
>     approved by AFRINIC).
> 2. Check with other regions the status of the GP within their PDP
> 3. Present the fact to the community get consensus to declare the policy dead (or not)
> 4. Inform the staff (Policy Liaison Manager) to change status of policy to "Abandon" if 
>     needed.
> 
> Will that make sense?

Yes - That would do the Job!  :-)

Just need someone to turn this into a Policy proposal now... short and
sweet.

> - a.
> > 
> > (By 'dead' - I mean a policy that can never be a global policy because
> > at least one other region will not agree to it - thus IANA/ICANN will
> > never approve)
> > 
> > On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 00:13 +0400, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
> >> In my understanding, on this matter I see two scenarios:
> >> 
> >> 1. Globally coordinated policies which are policies proposed by different (or
> >> same people) in different regions with the objective of getting their principle
> >> adopted and implemented in each RIR's region (maybe with small variances to
> >> adapt to local context).  A policy like that should normally not have a global
> >> effect on the RIR system. An example is AFPUB-2007-GEN-001. These policies can
> >> be adopted in one region and totally rejected in another region and that
> >> will/should not prevent the policy to be implemented (according to the local PDP
> >> guideline) in region(s) where it has been accepted (all politics set aside).
> >> 
> >> 2. Candidate for Global Policy: This is a kind of policy which is meant to
> >> define how IANA deal with RIRs in term of Number Resource management. This kind
> >> of policy has to be proposed in all the regions and a commonly agreed text
> >> should be submitted to ICANN board for ratification. The role of each RIR in
> >> this case will be to approve the policy as Global Policy Candidate (following
> >> there respective PDP). Such a policy can NOT be implemented by RIRs individually
> >> but by ICANN or IANA.
> >> 
> >> So in this debate I think the proposal could be for PDP-WG to instruct the staff
> >> to define a new status for Global Policy Proposals that have gone through the
> >> local PDP as "Approved" ("Waiting Global Consensus" or "Waiting ICANN
> >> ratification") and do nothing if nothing happened elsewhere. The policy status
> >> will change to "Ratified" only after the ICANN board has ratified it and pass it
> >> to IANA for implementation. The status "Approved" should stay until the proposal
> >> is withdrawn by the authors.
> >> 
> >> - a.
> >> 
> >> On 2012-05-18, at 18:41 PM, SM wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hi Mark,
> >>> At 04:11 18-05-2012, Mark Elkins wrote:
> >>>> With respect to Global Policies that have entered or passed any part of
> >>>> the AfriNIC process (from start to Board ratification), if it becomes
> >>>> clear that a Global Policy can not become Global Policy because other
> >>>> regions have not passed, neither intend to pass them, (are there any
> >>>> other reasons?) then - regardless of the stage that the policy is at
> >>>> (for example - it may not yet have been ratified by the Board), I
> >>>> believe the PDP Chairs should have the discretion to raise such stale
> >>>> global polices before the community at a face to face meeting and ask
> >>>> for consensus for the global policy to be discarded.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Something along these lines?
> > 
> >>> There have been negative comments about the way a global policy
> >> proposal was handled.  The PDWG Chairs have some discretion.  One
> >> question is whether the decision taken might open the way for problems
> >> in future.  That's the angle I would look at for the above suggestion.
> > 
> >>> Regards,
> >>> -sm 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> rpd mailing list
> >>> rpd at afrinic.net
> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> >  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - (South) Africa
> > /| /|       / /__       mje at posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
> > / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rpd mailing list
> > rpd at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> 

-- 
  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - (South) Africa
 /| /|       / /__       mje at posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4007 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20120522/1d0c7523/attachment.bin>