Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Policy Development Process Bis v4 issues
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Thu Nov 29 21:03:33 UTC 2018
As promised in the meeting, this is the list of issues that I've identified when I was reading the last version, last night.
It may require some more explanation point by point (hopefully we can start a discussion on those), as those are just my own notes when I was reading it, but definitively something to start to work.
What it more worries me is the complexity of the suggested process, this will decrease participation.
1) Definition of Consensus is incomplete and erroneous
2) The distinction among minor and major objections doesn’t make sense
3) Consensus determined only in the meeting (there is no timing for the discussion in the list)
4) Contradictory, consensus is not unanimity
5) Leave the chairs to decide. Providing so much details to them in the PDP means they can’t “move” on their own. Community elected them, community need to trust them. If they are erred, there is an appeal process.
6) Phases stated are complex and unnecessary. Looks like trying to copy the RIPE PDP but with broken things. Will difficult the community participation.
7) The PDP can’t avoid having competing proposals, it is good for the process and the community to investigate several choices.
8) The WG should not decide against a policy proposal if is in scope of the PDP (so adoption phase doesn’t apply)
9) End of discussion phase brings subjective documentation of the process, biasing the community.
10) Impact analysis should include “more” and not bias the community
11) What happens if the timing with the review phase and the next meeting doesn’t match?
12) In the Concluding phase, it is not clear why a proposal should go back to either the discussion or the review phase
13) Implementation waiver from who? The implementation timing is up to the staff and should be informed in the impact analysis
14) In the RIPE PDP we made last September a change, as there was a mistake in the process, following a policy proposal that I’ve authored, regarding the non-consensus after the review phase. I think you missed that point …
15) There is no point in asking for 3 individuals for an appeal. If a single community member wants to appeal a PDP decision and can't, I'm convinced he has the right to go to courts, because it is not inclusive
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
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.
More information about the RPD