Search RPD Archives
[rpd] About the Possibility to Handle an Operational Policy Proposal (was: Assisted Registry Checks)
Sylvain BAYA
abscoco at gmail.com
Mon Jul 1 11:40:04 UTC 2019
{i had to remove this conversation from the previous thread
[<https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009333.html>] prior to
answer.}
Hi all,
Please see below (inline)...
Le 6/26/2019 à 5:08 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD a écrit :
>
> See below, in-line. I think you’re getting confused …
>
...no confusion, although perhaps a mix of serious and joke (even if not
really
qualify for it) below ?
> El 26/6/19 17:53, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at gmail.com
> <mailto:abscoco at gmail.com>> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Please see below (inline)...
>
>
>
> Le 6/26/2019 à 9:36 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD a écrit :
>
> I just got one idea … One possibility to make it more neutral and
> having the knowledge of the operational insights …
>
>
>
> Hi Jordi, if i'm getting you well, (permit me please) you are saying
> that it if we need a policy proposal turned as an operational
> procedure, we should leave the exclisivity up to the Staff to submit
> it to the PDWG prior to be implemented... Am i wrong ?
>
>
>
> 1: I don’t believe something like the ARC should be a policy. It is
> just an operational issue. The RSA already allows the staff to tackle it.
>
Ok, first, remember that i was just trying to follow *your idea*, not mine.
...if i failed to get your point, i apologize, but i'm still
understanding it like
that {i'm probably missing something, you can explain me}.
You shared an idea, i analysed it and *i* gave *my own* conclusion as
follow :
- *if* it says that "/*if we* need a policy proposal turned as an
operational
procedure, we should leave the exclusivity up to the Staff to submit it
to the
PDWG prior to be implemented (after following all the PDP as for any other
policy, yes!)/"; then
- IMHO, this is the *small* change into the *normal* PDP (*variance*) it
implies :
- No policy proposal of operational procedure type (out of PDWG scope for
me, if proved), unless from the Staff (conclusion based on the premise).
Now, please, "trust me" it drives to a *variance*, because the CPM
section 3.4.0,
«[...] Anyone can submit a proposal. [...]», clearly states that
everyone can
submit *any* acceptable (speaking in terms of the PDWG scope) proposal...
Are you getting me, better, now ? {...you have to know that i have one more
variance implication ;-) in case the first one is not sufficient ; but i
think it will
suffice.}
>
> Even if normally the staff doesn’t submit policy proposals, is
> perfectly valid. Nothing is against that in the PDP. They follow
> exactly the same process: the community must also approve it.
>
>
>
> IMHO, i see no real need (yes :-) the neutrality you mentioned above)
> to *Varying the process* here. I mean someone, from the PDWG, should
> just submit it (if needed), then it will follow the normal PDP (Impact
> Analysis Report will raise the Staff concern then).
>
>
>
> 2: Mixing things doesn’t help at all to have all this clearer. I’m not
> saying the staff needs to use the variance process at all. I’m saying
> that if the community believes this should be a policy (I don’t think
> is needed), it is just fine, according to the PDP (nothing special),
> that this policy proposal is done by the staff and the community will
> need to agree on consensus, just like **any other policy proposal**
>
But, please read again and you will see that i am not for operational
procedures (nor for technical guidances) into the CPM (i think we have
BCOPs,
or internal procedures, for that, i may be wrong or seen as *bad* mixer but
i will always challenge this risk).
And, of course, i was not stating that you are for it. I have understood
that
you shared your idea to propose a soft exit for those *you think* want
these type of *policies* into the CPM (hope i am not wrong this time.
Hope to have other views on the subject).
...i just wanted to understand how practical what you suggested is.
If you see it as a mix (of non interoperable things)...to question the
consequences of what i see (again i may be wrong and i have this right at
least as a new comer :-) ) as a *a possible change* (or variation?) into
the
habitual PDP. Sincerely, i don't know (but yes, to keep quiet) how to
correct
it... :'-(
> My point is that, we want the Staff more proactive [1], to *timely*
> provide needed information (including legal one) both onlist and at
> PPM (CPM section 3.4.0), to *timely* provide Impact Analysis Reports
> (CPM section 3.4.1)...and as actually proven, it's not easy to get it
> done.
>
>
>
> 3: Again, don’t mix things, I’m not talking about the impact analysis.
> You can see the email subject is ARC.
>
...Jordi, IMHO if you mix things very well, i'll be ok with that. I was
thinking
before (you) that all we are doing, in this earth, is to try to mix
different
things to get a well mixed *dough*. I have in head, cookers (and managers)
and i'm sure they are doing a good job ;-)
Apart joking (as you had a talk on it on a thread where secret-wg was
mentioned) a bit, i can ensure you that *i'm sure* that my mixing is not
a bad
one :-) {i may be wrong, but no more than clear arguments will suffice to
convince me}.
...impact analysis ?
Look, what i was trying to put in lights is the apparently *overoccupancy*
(and you, also, have wrote about this, somewhat, worrying situation) of the
Staff.
...my point was that if the Staff are (seen as) so busy now ; to a much
greater
extent will they be if they also have to play an author role for one (or
more)
policy proposal ?
As you explained (and i told you that it was instructive) me how it is time
consuming to get a policy proposal through the PDP to the CPM, how can they
be engaged as author with less *impact* unsollicited ? {...again, i did
a simple
analysis and i will continue to do so until it is *factually* proven
that i'm wrong
in my approach.}
Again, i choose to use a fresh (local) example to sustain my
argumentation and
you see it as a (*bad*) mix. Would you prefer me to take an *out of scope*
example ? ...say the cooker one for instance :-)
> This way it was developed in RIPE NCC.
>
>
>
> Maybe Ernest, Madhvi or other staff want to take it?
>
>
>
> ...i don't think that they should be involved in the PDP as author,
> even just in case of emergency :-)
>
> Is there not also a bit of *conflict of interest* ?
>
>
>
> 4: No variance, the PDP allows the staff to submit policy proposals.
> Doesn’t happen often, but is quite admissible if we want the ARC to be
> a policy instead of just an operational procedure.
>
...agree with you on everything except the "no variance" assertion.
...also don't forget that, actually i'm actively reading the CPM and be
sure
that *any time*, i will think there is a problem (in regards of the PDP or
other policies) with some practices on the PDWG, i'll raise it. Even if
at end
i'm turned ridiculous...no matter :-)
>
> Again, they could do this just an operational procedure, but if we
> prefer a policy, this is nice way in the middle.
>
>
>
> Ok with that, and again i see no problem if any other participant (or
> an other special WG which may exist ?) decides to author|submit such
> an operational policy proposal :-)
>
> __
>
> [1]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009626.html>
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009626.html>
>
>
>
> Shalom,
>
> --sb.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
Hey ! Jordi, i'm still thankfull for the opportunities i still have,
during our
discussions, and which help me to better understand how things work out
there ;-)
Thanks & Shalom,
--sb.
>
>
> El 26/6/19 10:29, "Nasir Faruk" <nasirfaruk at gmail.com
> <mailto:nasirfaruk at gmail.com>> escribió:
>
>
>
> @SOUAD ABIDI,
>
>
>
> I think the author sent ARC document as a suggestion or rather
> something worth looking at that could assists to shape the
> discussion on INR. I am sure it's presented as a new proposal.
>
>
>
> @Dewole, i hope i'm right?
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> Faruk.
>
>
>
>
>
> ..........................................................................................................
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
--
Regards,
Sylvain B.
<http://www.chretiennement.org>
__
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>
<https://twitter.com/cmN0G>
<https://facebook.com/cmNOG>
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/REBOOTcmNOG>
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/cmNOG>
<https://cmnog.wordpress.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190701/9f149876/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x0387408365AC8594.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 4826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190701/9f149876/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190701/9f149876/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the RPD
mailing list