[rpd] timing for impact analysis

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Komi,

 

This has been explained already several times, please collect the discussion from the list. Asking the community to tell the same things again, I don’t hink is useful for anyone.

 

In short, and not entering again in the details:

Having differente phases (adoption, discussion, review, PPM), only increase the overhead and complexity of the process and to the chairs. This is not helpful to increase the participation.

 

In RIPE we have those phases, because the decision is taken *only in the list*, so there is a need for a stronger timing, which in the case of AFRINIC, if we keep the meeting as mandatory to decide on the consensus, the only “timing” to imposse is that the proposals need to be presented 4 weeks or 1 week before the meeting (depending on a new proposal or a new version of an existing one).

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 16/7/19 18:13, "Komi Elitcha" <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Hi Jordi,

 

You keep repeating yourself and refuse to listen to the counter arguments...

 


>From lessons learnt with serveral years experience with the current PDP, it is proposed to improve the PDP as follow


 

The current PDP:

 

            -discussion phase

            -Impact Analysis (May)

            -PPM

            -Concluding phase

 

PDP-bis:

 

            -Adoption phase

            -Discussion  phase

            -Impact analysis  (shall)

            - Review phase

            -PPM

            -Concluding phase

 

Can you explain for once why the proposed model won't work? What’s wrong with gauging that a proposal which passes the previous phase has enough support to move to Concluding phase at the PPM? 

 

Can we move on?

 

Thanks

 



On Jul 14, 2019, at 10:55 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

 

Hi Komi,

 

I think you misunderstood. I’m not saying to change to just the list (at least not now).

 

What I’m saying is precisely that the PDP-Bis has been copied from the RIPE PDP, which is meant for only-list. That’s the main reason it doesn’t make sense.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 15/7/19 0:21, "Komi Elitcha" <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Hi Jordi,

 

Can we stick to review of the current AFRINIC PDP,  focus on solutions to address the issues and not mix with our  experience with  other RIRs  PDP?

 

Experience with Afrinic PDP and  the regional  context make PPM  mandatory, as part of the consensus decision-making process. Not many in the region, have time and energy to follow closely discussions on proposals which happen in only one single  phase, just in 4 weeks.

 

If we exercise the multi phase approach of PDP-BIS  ( adoption , discussion, review phases) before PPM with  the clear definition of roles and responsibilities  of chairs,  we may conclude  later on that  consensus can  just  be obtained  via  only email as the process would have shown that  good discussions and work has been done over these phases. 

 

 

 

- Komi




On Jul 14, 2019, at 9:22 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:

 

Hi Komi,

 

 

El 14/7/19 2:07, "Komi Elitcha" <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Hi Jordi,


Le 10 juil. 2019 à 14:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> a écrit :

Hi Arnaud,

 

I don’t agree. Sometimes even a single coma changed, can change the interpretation of the text. Probably not too much, but sufficient for the staff to make a new review of the existing impact analysis to verify what has changed.

 

Maybe submit changes to staff for applying them to new version?

 

We shall make sure proposal mature from discussions before requesting impact analysis.. It makes no sense  to involve staff in every update. We have seen proposal going  back and forward.

 

On the contrary. The costliest impact analysis, in a typical proposal, is the first one. It takes longer. New versions of policy proposals, means, typically, small impact analysis changes. If the authors are consequent with the impact analysis, addressing the issues, typically it gets reduced.

 

With current PDP, where every proposal  under discussion for

 4 weeks, is placed on  the agenda for next PPM, the best  thing to do is to only request staff analysis  on version of proposal to be presented and discussed at PPM. This means, co-chairs must  organize the discussions around proposals and work with authors to deliver updated version to be presented at PPM  on time to allow impact analysis.

 

Is up to the authors to progress their work. I agree that ideally, they should do it, for new versions many weeks up-front the meeting, so we have a final impact analysis on time, but it depends on the community participating in the list. I can address the issues of the impact analysis of proposal “n” v1 and have v2, but I often want to address in the same version the community inputs, sometimes I wait for those and never come, so you do it just to match the deadline for new versions which is 1 weeks before the meeting.

 

If impact analysis is required according to co-chairs and can't be done before PPM, then discussion  at the meeting should not  seek consensus.

 

I don’t agree with that. We have seen (in every RIR), proposals reaching consensus even without impact analysis. I know is good and it is ideal (because it allows the authors to refine every bit of the proposal), but is not a must to reach consensus.

 

After all, we are all humans, even if we have a “perfect” impact analysis, sometimes we miss something and the policy needs a new cycle to improve. This is part of the PDP process. The policy manual is always evolving. Circumstances change, technology change, world change. It needs to be adapted to all that.





 

I agree that *most of the times* this will mean just a very few minutes work, but it all depends on the changes from one proposal version to another. I think is fair to ask the staff for it (as this is already their existing operational practice), but at the same time, let to them to decide if it needs a lot of changes or just minor one, because it will depend on each case.

 

Are we still talking about staff’s impact staff comment on proposal?

 

I’ve talked always about impact analysis. I see staff comments as any other community inputs. What I don’t expect is the staff to raise things that belong to the impact analysis during the meeting, or even worst after it. They should do their work up front, unless it was a new “big and complex” proposal submitted just 4 weeks before the meeting and it was impossible to have a final impact analysis by the meeting. I doubt this is something that may happen, but I’m happy to keep the door open and in that case a “draft impact analysis” maximum 10 days before the meeting allows the authors to submit, if possible and needed, a new version, to correct any “big” problems in time for the 1 week before the meeting dead-line.

 

1st staff impact analysis on proposal should clearly state what the concerns are and the working group must work in making sure these concerns are addressed and that throughout all changes, comply with the impact analysis.

Only major  revision  shall require  new impact analysis. 

 

In other RIRs, this is done in every version as well. RIPE is a different case, because the RIPE process is meant to work *only* in the mailing list. We can’t compare it, because as we “believe” that there is already some possibility of consensus in the list, then we do a single impact analysis. If we try to do it in Afrinic, where the consensus requires a meeting, it will mean that we need to wait for the meeting for having an impact analysis, and maybe we then discover something that is too late to modify so we need to wait for one more meeting, and so on.

 

Staff  can voice alarms anytime  if see working  group deviance from  the impact analysis.





 

Clearly this helps the people reading any proposal, because they want to make sure that they are reading the impact analysis for that one. Otherwise you ask each PDP participant to double check all the previous versions compare them, and make sure that the considerations on the impact analysis match.

 

As said the PDP explicit that the “chairs may request” but not that it can’t be done if the chairs don’t request it.

 

The PDP by explicitly stating what can be done, implicitly prohibit what can't be done.  Otherwise no need for a PDP.

 

I disagree. PDP is like law. Law only says what is mandatory and what is forbidden. Anything in the middle is allowed. If law say you may open a bank account and law doesn’t prohibit you to open many bank accounts, then you are allowed to open none, one or as many as you want. In our case PDP say may be requested, but doesn’t prohibit the staff to include in the internal process to do one for each version.

 

When PDP  does not have provision for something, BCPs can apply  or working group consensus may decide on how to proceed.

Otherwise , PDP should be revised to cater with what need to change

Time to discuss PDP-BIS .





 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

-Komi



 

 

 

El 10/7/19 11:43, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Hi Jordi,

 

Sometimes you try to complicate simple and easy things and rather complain that  everything else is complicated. Staff analysis is not needed for every revision of proposal being discussed. The current PDP addresses this by stating the chairs may request. Responsible policy process follows existing PDP diligently 

 

The  series of automatic staff analysis  we have seen even when a simple clarification is made to proposals have not helped the process.

 

Let us stick to what the current PDP says and rely on chairs to make decision on when to request staff analysis and manage the timing.

 

Arnaud.

 

Le mar. 9 juil. 2019 à 10:07, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> a écrit :

Hi Arnaud,

 

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?

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

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?

 

Arnaud

 

 


**********************************************
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.

_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
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.







**********************************************
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.

_______________________________________________
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/20190716/5352c7aa/attachment-0001.html>