[rpd] Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures - Draft03 (PDWG Chair)

Wed Nov 17 10:16:28 UTC 2021

Hi Owen,

El 17/11/21 10:30, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> escribió:

On Nov 17, 2021, at 00:35 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

Below in-line

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 16/11/21 16:29, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> escribió:

On Nov 16, 2021, at 01:48 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

While I agree with you that it is difficult to reach consensus on both policies, we tried several times to get authors from both sides to get together and never happened, and if there is no “copy” of one policy into the other (as this is the case), I think competition is fine.

What it will be bad is to copy a policy from one set of authors into another one, and change a few things, because that’s a way to avoid consensus. I don’t think it has been the case here.

What will also be bad is if we get rough consensus on two policies that modify the same sections of the CPM in conflicting ways.

[Jordi] Actually not. If proposal A get consensus declared before proposal B, even if you include in the CPM A, then B, what remains is the text of B. That will be according to the PDP. Never mind if A and B declaration of consensus happens with 2 years of difference or just 2 hours. So, in the worst case, if in a single meeting there are 2 competing and conflicting proposals, the chairs have the attribution to decide which one goes last, so that one will prevail. Exactly the same way in the IETF we have documents that update the previous ones!

This assumes that to be the desired outcome of the community.

If A and B achieve consensus at the same meeting, I’m not convinced that is necessarily the case, since the order of consensus is determined not by community preference, but merely the order in which they were placed on the agenda.

[Jordi] The order in the agenda should be irrelevant (ideally it should be FIFO, first proposal submitted/update, first to be presented), but besides that, what it matters is the determination of consensus, which not necessarily must match the order in the agenda. They chairs shall do the consensus determination following FIFO.

Further, what remains is not B, what remains is the original text as modified by A with the modifications from B then applied against that. 

For example, consider if we had a policy text that contains “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog’s back.”

Proposal A changes the brown fox to a purple rabbit.

Proposal B changes the color of the fox from brown to green and changes the dog into a horse.

Now, let us consider your suggested outcome in light of:

                Agenda covers policy A first then B…

                                “The quick green rabbit jumped over the lazy horse’s back.”

                Agenda covers policy B first, then A…

                                “The quick purple rabbit jumped over the lazy horse’s back.”

I think we can agree that making the overall policy outcome dependent on the order in which proposals were discussed at a meeting is probably not the ideal result. Further, I think the above shows that this could become a recipe for policies that make no sense, since both proposals were written with the intent of modifying the original language and neither took the other into account.

[Jordi] it all depends on how you take it. When a policy reach consensus it needs to be updated in the CPM, but if 5 minutes after another proposal reached also consensus, the CPM change is still not done, the last one will prevail. We need to isolate the timing in between two proposals from the “at the minute” CPM status, otherwise, we will be treating in a different way proposals presented in the same meeting from proposals presented at different meetings, which will be unfair.

If this version missed the deadline, then it missed the deadline. We really need to stop arbitrarily making process exceptions without considering the unintended consequences which may well extend beyond just the bad precedent you describe above. It may effectively disenfranchise participants in the process because they did not expect the late arriving policy to be considered, so they don’t attend the relevant session or they are otherwise unprepared to fully engage on it due to the short timeline.

[Jordi] There may be an English misinterpretation of the PDP here. But my reading is that “No change can be made to a draft policy within one week of the meeting”, if the meeting starts on 17th, means that you can’t send a proposal after 9th noon, because the week before the meeting is 10th to 16th. How do you see that as English native speaker?

In general, I would interpret it to mean that the text is frozen effectively 168 hours prior to the start of the meeting. Rounding up to include the midnight prior to that point also strikes me as a valid interpretation.

[Jordi] So then a proposal submitted at 15:00 or so of the 10th, is out of the process, clearly. This  is the same interpretation for an Spanish speaker using English.

Owen

**********************************************
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/20211117/747e68e5/attachment.html>