[rpd] New Proposal Received | Simple PDP Update for the new “Normal” (Draft-1)

[Ekaterina Kalugina]

Dear Jordi,

First of all, you wrote and I quote:

“As said, this is the current practice! The chairs can confirm that. We
aren’t changing this, just making sure that it is explicit in the PDP.”

I feel like this statement is  greatly misleading because the original
policy states that “the Chair(s) determine(s) whether rough consensus has
been achieved during the Public Policy Meeting.” While in your proposed
policy it is stated that “the Chairs have a maximum of 2 weeks to determine
whether rough consensus has been achieved (considering both list and
meeting).” You  are including a mailing list as a source for determination
of whether the “rough consensus” is achieved.

Just like Cathie and Beatrix pointed out in the previous emails, making
this explicit is dangerous as it could open doors to potential
manipulation. Could you please address this point instead of dismissing it?

Secondly, the clause 3.4.1 tries to sneak in a mandatory impact analysis
clause. I find it greatly problematic, considering that you already
proposed a separate policy that attempts to do precisely that. This comes
across very contrived. I think this point should be properly discussed in a
separate policy instead of piggybacking on this one.


In addition, I think we should not have a definition of the rough consensus
in the CPM. The proposed definition is incomplete, and therefore could
leave room for misinterpretation. I think the section 3.1.1 should be
scratched completely, so that we can fall back on the initial definition
proposed by the IETF.

For the above reasons,  I am strongly against this policy.

Best wishes,

Ekaterina Kay Kalugina

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:41 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <
rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:


> Hi Elvis,

>

>

>

> You’re missing the concept of consensus. It is important to read the

> relevant RFC (RFC7282). This is what we follow in RIRs.

>

>

>

> This is not a voting and this proposal is NOT about elections!

>

>

>

> There is no such thing as “minor or major”. There is only “objection”. An

> objection is something that is demonstrated and not refuted by authors.

>

>

>

> Editorial details are a different thing.

>

>

>

> If in the last call there is an objection AND is not refuted by the

> authors (or it was refuted already during the discussion), the proposal

> must keep the consensus status. If there is a “new” objection that was not

> discovered before, then the chairs should declare no consensus and bring it

> back to discussion. Then the authors need to make a new version to address

> that objection.

>

>

>

> Now if the objection is resolved in that version and the new discussion in

> the list agree with that, why we need to wait for a new meeting?

>

>

>

> Or even more. If the objection was just a clarification on the text, to

> avoid a miss-interpretation, and a new version is done for that, why we

> need to wait for a new meeting presentation if we can agree on that in the

> list?

>

>

>

> Everybody is able to participate in the list, this provides **more**

> opportunities to everybody. The meetings are only for the people than can

> pay for the traveling expenses, or if done virtually, have good internet

> connection to participate. And even in those cases, there is no “unlimited”

> time in the meetings (virtual or in-person) for everybody to express their

> objections, while emails have no limit!

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> El 16/9/20 10:28, "Ibeanusi Elvis" <ibeanusielvis at gmail.com> escribió:

>

>

>

> Dear community,

>

>

>

> In regards to this proposal, I do not concur with the objectives of this

> proposal. As already pointed out the issue of the process at which the

> consensus is attained creating unfairness within the community and the

> chances of email manipulations.Everyone should be given the opportunity to

> vote in an electoral structure of consensus attainment.  Nevertheless, a

> major problem with this proposal is the last call. When a major objection

> is found during the last call procedure, it is meant to return to the

> discussion phase due to its inability to reach a consensus and

> inadvertently, the newer version of this proposal should make significant

> and meaningful changes in comparison with the old version that did not

> reach a consensus. No proposal should be returned with only few wording or

> grammatical, and spelling corrections made.

>

>

>

> Best, Elvis

>

>

>

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:33 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <

> rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

>

> Hi Cathie,

>

> The actual practice in AFRINIC, as the chairs can confirm or you can check

> with videos from the previous meetings, they *look* at the mailing list to

> determine consensus. What we do with this proposal is to make sure that the

> PDP make it explicit.

>

> In all the other RIRs the mailing list is also looked by the chairs to

> determine consensus.

>

> So if you oppose to the proposal because that, then we should cancel all

> the consensus determination done during all the last years?

>

> Regards,

> Jordi

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

> El 16/9/20 9:19, "Cathie Jay" <cathie.kay89 at gmail.com> escribió:

>

>     Dear Jordi, dear community,

>

>     I oppose this policy because of the way in which consensus is reached.

>     The current policy stipulates that consensus should be reached through

>     the balancing of the mailing list and forum, and not during the PPM.

>     Such policy could pave the way for the intrusion of fake emails within

>     the discussion, which could endanger the process of reaching a fair

>     consensus, and jeopardize the process of policy-making. In addition,

>     it would significantly undermine the work of the co-chairs who will

>     facilitate the discussion.

>

>     All best wishes,

>

>     Cathie

>

>     On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:26 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD

>     <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

>     >

>     > Hi Chloe,

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     > Exactly! I just responded to that to Gaby.

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     > Tks!

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     > Regards,

>     >

>     > Jordi

>     >

>     > @jordipalet

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     > El 9/9/20 13:00, "Chloe Kung" <chloe.kung.public at gmail.com>

> escribió:

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     > Hi,

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     > I actually think section 3.4.3 is adequate as the discussion period

> of each policy proposal is a good 8 weeks. If there is no major objection

> based on technical justification submitted during the 8 weeks, the chance

> of having one during the last call period is very small. Even so, the

> community still have more time than needed to address and discuss the

> matter. Also this section states and I quote "Within 1 week after the end

> of the last call, the Working Group Chairs shall confirm whether consensus

> is maintained.” So if there is such case, meaning the consensus cannot be

> maintained, it will fall back into the discussion period anyway.

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     > Best,

>     >

>     > Chloe

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     > _______________________________________________ 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.

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200916/bca6f18e/attachment-0001.html>