Search RPD Archives
[rpd] timing for impact analysis
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Tue Jul 9 10:06:32 UTC 2019
Can you exatly show us what existing text in the PDP disallows an internal procedure for the staff to make an impact analysis?
Additional explanation from the PDP:
3.4.1 Draft Policy Proposal
… 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. …
Can you enlight us about why if the staff decides to have this impact analysis *even* if the chairs don’t ask for it, in an automatic fashion for every policy proposal/version, it can’t be done?
Why this is bad for the community (or even the chairs)? Why is a so terrible thing that we should disable the staff the ability to improve their processes?
How this is “revoking *any* chairs prerogative”? Can the chairs confirm if they have any trouble which this, or it is a clear improvement on the internal (already existing) staff process?
Are we, as a community, trying to improve things in the most agile way, or trying to work against ourselves?
El 9/7/19 11:53, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com> escribió:
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019, 15:52 Ernest Byaruhanga <ernest at afrinic.net> wrote:
On 5 Jul 2019, at 23:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Since we got the idea from Sylvain to fix the impact analysis timing (he almost convinced me that we need a policy proposal for that).
> So, before sending a formal policy proposal, I've exchanged emails with the staff about that, and we discussed that being an operational issue, it may be not necessary to have a policy proposal, but instead an operational process update.
> Note that I'm sending this to the list, as agreed with the staff, in order to ensure that we make it transparent for the community, as this is clearly a benefit for all:
> My proposal to the staff:
> Could you amend your actual procedure for the impact analysis in such way that state something in the line of "the staff will provide the impact analysis for new policy proposals in 4 weeks. For new versions of existing policy proposals, which already have an impact analysis, we will aim for providing it in a maximum of 2 weeks. In some cases, it may take longer, however, we will aim to have the full impact analysis or at least some draft of it, 10 days before each policy meeting."
> I think Ernest want to suggest a small tweak on that text, but I think it should be ok and we avoid a policy proposal and a long discussion and make a better use of the time for all the participants for more complex problems.
Yes - The suggestion above is reasonable. Let us commit to providing a staff analysis in 4 weeks for a new proposal or a large change, and 2 weeks for a small change to an existing proposal.
Are we changing the PDP through staff ? Are we imposing staff analysis to each revision of proposal being discussed ? Are we revoking chairs prerogative to request staff analysis when it is needed? While new proposal seems obvious, who decides what is large change or small change? Is this not the cochairs call?
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