[rpd] About the Possibility to Handle an Operational Policy Proposal (was: Assisted Registry Checks)

Mon Jul 1 11:54:48 UTC 2019

El 1/7/19 13:46, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at gmail.com> escribió:

{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> 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.}  

If the staff send a proposal, because it is allowed by the PDP, somebody else can still submit another proposal for the same, if they have a better idea than the staff (I expect will not happen, but not against it). So this is not a variance of the process, because I’ve not talked about “exclusivity”.

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... :'-(

Exactly, I still believe that operational (internal to the RIR) if it works is good enough, otherwise, go for policies. BCOPS are operational recommendations for the community (the ISPs)

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 ?

It is a matter of prioritization sometimes, not just been “overbooked”.

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>

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> 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/>
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd 

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
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...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190701/09a57268/attachment-0001.html>