Search RPD Archives
[rpd] impact analysis for policies
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Tue Jun 25 08:09:25 UTC 2019
See below, in-line.
El 25/6/19 1:21, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at gmail.com> escribió:
Please see below (inline)
Le 6/24/2019 à 3:03 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD a écrit :
You’re good man! You just convinced me and I’m not easy ;-)
...i'm trying to do my best, for sure, by the grace of THE Lord.
Jordi i have a similar thought about you :-)
I accept your bet ;-) Let’s have *now* a very simple policy proposal for making the impact analysis timely mandatory.
Thanks for have accepted this challenge. We have an opportunity to bring less policy proposals, under discussion, at the next PPM (Public Policy Meeting) ; because some of them would have already reached consensus before and that is very good news.
...not sure if we can do it so simple as you want it ; but...we should try ;-)
I think we may use this one, which is a very simple change, and I hope everybody in the community will be happy to accept as a “trial”. I’m not suggesting at this time to use it for other policy proposals. If it works, in the future we can consider a PDP change to allow policies to go thru the mailing list without the need to wait for the meeting (as we do in IETF and RIPE). It is up to the chairs at this time to accept it and the community to decide on this small change then.
I’m proposing you the following and I’m doing it openly in the list, so others can provide inputs as well.
I agree, let's discuss openly to collect any available input :-)
According “3.6 Varying the Process”, for that we need a *co-chair* to accept it. Any taker?
This is the variance that I’m proposing:
1) Publish officially the policy proposal and start a 4-weeks for community discussion.
2) If after that, the chairs believe there is consensus, last-call for 4-weeks.
3) If there is no-consensus, allow to repeat the process, maximum up to one month before the next meeting (then there is no need for the variance of the process).
4. This Variance decision shall take effect one month after its publication on the PDP list.
-> not sure what do you mean here. Once the chairs accept it, the policy proposal can be submitted and published in a few days. There will be 4-weeks (I think is sufficient for this case but I’m happy for more) for discussing. So why 4 more weeks are needed? We want to keep it simple, if we start discussing about the variance itself, we may never have go thru it …
5. That first month after the publication of the Variance decision shall serve to prepare the commuty before the effective start point of the cycle of variance.
-> Now I see it, but I don’t think is needed. We are already talking about it, community should be reading (those not reading now will not read later … according to my experience, and anyway, they have several weeks to discuss), and it may take several days for the chairs to decide, then to prepare a policy proposal document, then to publish it, and finally for a formal announcement of the process. The chairs may decide to just use 6 weeks or 8 instead of 4. Whatever they decide I’m ok with that.
*Question* : where to store this Variance decision and its future successors ?
...to what i understand, when published it becomes part of the PDP and supersides all existent concurrent texts which might conflict with it.
-> there is no difference between how a policy proposal is handled, same process versus a normal one (web page, presentation in the next meeting if reached consensus, minutes, etc.).
*A Proposed Answer*
With the CPM section 3.6, can we conclude that it's not possible to alter the CPM to insert|store the variance decision ? (perhaps we should also prepare a policy proposal to amend the CPM section 3.6 :-/)
I have an idea, i'm not sure it could work fine. But let's give it a try please :-)
...so when the Chairs annonce a new variance of the CPM, we can tag the title of all the section affected by the new variance decision by something like [SUPERSIDED by Variance in Place ; see Section 3.6.1] :
+ We leave the actual texts of any affected sections as it is :
+ Just add a special tag with a small text to the title ?
Like this : [SUPERSIDED by the Varying in Place ; see section 3.6.1]
+ Title the section 3.6.1 by : Active Variance Process Decisions
+ Paste the variance decision at the section 3.6.1. (new sub-section)
+ Remove the content of the section when the Variance Decision expires.
I don’t think this is needed and this makes it very complex, as it means we must change the PDP before processing this variance …
ACTUAL text (at 3.4.1):
The Working Group Chair(s) may request AFRINIC to provide an analysis (technical, financial, legal or other), of the impact of the draft policy proposal.
DRAFT proposed text (replace the previous text):
AFRINIC will publish an impact analysis (technical, financial, legal or other) at least 10 days before the next Public Policy Meeting. If justified, in case of extremely complex new policy proposals, AFRINIC will publish at least a draft version of the impact analysis.
As discussed before, the problem to solve is too complex. To handle most of the complexity, i propose this text instead :
*** DRAFT proposed text (replace the previous text):
* The AFRINIC Staff publish (website and RPD mailinglist) an impact analysis report during the first week after a new policy proposal is published.
* When a new version of a policy proposal is published, on request of the Chair(s) or the Author(s), the Staff publish a new impact analysis report, during the first week after the publication of that policy proposal version.
* No impact analysis report should be published ten (10) days before the next Public Policy Meeting.
* If justified, in case of extremely complex new policy proposals, AFRINIC Staff publish at least a draft version of the impact analysis report.
* An impact analysis report shall be of one or both following types : technical, financial, legal or other.
-> I think you’re making it extremely complex without a real need for that. Keep it simple and “short”. Some impact analysis need much more time than a week. Just let’s make sure we have it ahead of the meeting. 10 days allows the authors, if they are quick, to publish immediately a new version (within the 1-week deadline before the meeting), in case minor issues discovered by the impact analysis (I’ve done that in a couple of cases!). The impact analysis already includes all that, no need to mention it.
-> This will only work if we make it extremely simple and acceptable for all the community. I’m happy to change the 10-days before the meeting to 2-weeks, for example. See a new version below.
DRAFT proposed text (replace the previous text):
AFRINIC will publish an impact analysis (including technical, financial, legal and other aspects) as soon as possible for each policy proposal submitted (as a maximum 2 weeks before the next Public Policy Meeting). When duly justified, in case of extremely complex new policy proposals, AFRINIC will publish meanwhile a draft version of the impact analysis.
This small change in our PDP will prove ourselves that AFRINIC community is able to pro-actively discuss and pass policy proposals in the list.
What do you think?
I agree that we are doing a good job (thank GOD), together, and hopefully some other will follow this challenging approach.
: Like is not the right word, say as it is, i think that your text has no yet taken in account all the information we have publicly discussed.
El 24/6/19 15:20, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at gmail.com> escribió:
Website : <https://www.cmnog.cm>
Wiki : <https://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki>
Surveys : <https://survey.cmnog.cm>
Subscribe to Mailing List : <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
Mailing List's Archives : <https://lists.cmnog.cm/pipermail/cmnog/>
Last Event's Feed : <https://twitter.com/hashtag/cmNOGlab3>
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD