<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Cuerpo en alfa";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Texto sin formato Car";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML con formato previo Car";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD;}
span.TextosinformatoCar
{mso-style-name:"Texto sin formato Car";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Texto sin formato";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.HTMLconformatoprevioCar
{mso-style-name:"HTML con formato previo Car";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML con formato previo";
font-family:Consolas;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.EstiloCorreo23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=ES link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'>Hi Mark,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'>We do that (only list) in IETF and I think it is the only way forward!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'>The only RIR that now is doing this way is RIPE (for many years), and it works very well. It forces the people to actively contribute in the list, it makes the policy process to be straight forward and much faster. It requires a bit of extra work from chairs, but the staff can help them to summarize all the discussion points, different perspectives, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'>Two years ago, I tried to make a PDP update in LACNIC following this approach, but during the discussion it was evident to me that it will not reach consensus so, I did a second policy proposal for making sure that the chairs officially consider the list AND the meeting (at that time it was only the meeting, like we have now in AFRINIC and APNIC).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'>My intent is to make this possible thru new policy proposals, maybe in about one year from now in LACNIC, and may be also around the same time for APNIC and AFRINIC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'>I think we should have a much simpler PDP which facilitates, at least a bit, a small increase in community participation before going to the “only list” approach.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'>Regards,</span><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'>Jordi</span><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'>@jordipalet</span><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>El 23/6/19 15:11, "Mark Elkins" <<a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za">mje@posix.co.za</a>> escribió:<span style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Again you are correct. The PDP meeting should really only be used for formal presentations and to perhaps clarify anything - although even that could be done in the mailing list. The meeting can also perhaps be used to provide a summary of discussions on the mailing list. The decision really should not have to happen in the meeting - it should almost be a foregone conclusion whether a particular policy is going to go to "final call" or not.<br><br>I wonder if we as a community will ever have the possibility of a policy going from inception to passing without it ever having to wait for (or going to) a meeting. That should be possible.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>On 2019/06/23 13:30, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=ES-TRAD>Hi all,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>I'm opening a new thread, and is not an easy one and could be very contentious, but I think is urgently needed.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>I mention it briefly in my previous email, but it was a long one, so I want to make sure that we concentrate in this part.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Our PDP is meant for contributing in the mailing list for discussions and in the meeting. However, formally, the decision is taken in the meeting.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Everybody that comes to the meetings is *<b>able</b>* to participate in the mailing list as well, so unless something "new" is discovered about a policy proposal, should we consider for the consensus that comments against a policy proposal that were not raised previously in the list, should not "take over" the gauge of the level of consensus support? *<b>There are no excuses</b>* to be in the meeting and raise something if you have already been in the mailing list and not raised it before.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Sometimes, an issue raised in the list, may be too contentious to be resolved there, and that’s why we need meetings, and not just the “formal” policy day, but also chats in the breaks, etc. This the way we resolve issues in the IETF, where the definition of rough consensus was developed, and this is the one we use in the RIRs. RFC7282 and for short, read kind of summary of it below (1) my signature.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Second part of this, and actually a *<b>much stronger point</b>*:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Some folks, which are in the list, which are *<b>actual</b>* authors of other policy proposals, didn’t brought their inputs in the list, they have actually brought them in the meeting, just for the *<b>insane sake of overthrow this proposal</b>* and exclusively for their own interest.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>My view is that those authors, as I’m not supporting their own policy proposals, believe that I’m against them “personally”, it seems to me they don’t understand that the PDP is not about “your interest” but the “community interest”.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>If those authors of other policy proposals are really looking for the *<b>well of the community</b>*, they *<b>MUST</b>* participate in the list *<b>not only</b>* to defend their own policy proposals, but also to improve the ones from other authors (as I do).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>If they provid those inputs in the list in advance to the meeting, then we could have made a new version in time for resolving their issues and reaching consensus.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>If someone supports a policy proposal, *<b>ideally, they should explicitly say it in the list</b>*, so the co-chairs have a broader view of the real community support.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>If someone doesn’t support a policy proposal, *<b>MUST say it in the list</b>* so it can be discussed and amended if necessary way ahead of the meeting, so we can reach consensus, because the meeting time is precious, and proposals are submitted to improve our system and this means if we believe something is needed is much better reach consensus in 1 year than in 2. Obvious right?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>How come, as I learnt in the Dakar meeting (from one of the authors of a policy proposal under discussion who told me in person), can authors not read the mailing list and respond to, not only their own policy proposal inputs, but also contribute to others?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Note that I explicitly don’t want to mention specific names, because, again, this is not about individuals, but about the community.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>So, should we have a rule, or at least co-chairs consider, that people contributing in the meeting, should have already contributed in the list, unless it is a new issue *<b>not</b>* discovered before?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Again, this is not a fight among different sets of policy proposals authors, but it looks like when some of them, don’t do comments in the list, and wait till the meeting for killing consensus.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Opinions?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Jordi</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>@jordipalet</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>(1) Definition of ‘Consensus’</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Achieving ‘consensus’ does not mean that proposals are voted for and against, nor that the number of ‘yes's’, ‘no's’ and ‘abstentions’ – or even participants – are counted, but that the proposal has been discussed not only by its author(s) but also by other members of the community, regardless of their number, and that, after a period of discussion, all critical technical objections have been resolved.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>In general, this might coincide with a majority of members of the community in favor of the proposal, and with those who are against the proposal basing their objections on technical reasons as opposed to ‘subjective’ reasons. In other words, low participation or participants who disagree for reasons that are not openly explained should not be considered a lack of consensus.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Objections should not be measured by their number, but instead by their nature and quality within the context of a given proposal. For example, a member of the community whose opinion is against a proposal might receive many ‘emails’ (virtual or real) in their support, yet the chairs might consider that the opinion has already been addressed and technically refuted during the debate; in this case, the chairs would ignore those expressions of support against the proposal.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>For information purposes, the definition of ‘consensus’ used by the RIRs and the IETF is actually that of ‘rough consensus’, which allows better clarifying the goal in this context, given that ‘consensus’ (Latin for agreement) might be interpreted as ‘agreed by all’ (unanimity). More specifically, RFC7282, explains that “Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated.”</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Consequently, in this document ‘consensus’ should be interpreted as ‘rough consensus’.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>As an ‘abridged’ definition for the remainder of the document, a proposal is considered to have reached consensus when it is supported by meaningful opinions, after broad discussion, and when there are no irrefutable technical objections.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Definition of Last call</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>The purpose of the ‘last call’ is to provide the community with a brief and final opportunity to comment on the proposal, especially to those who didn’t do so earlier. Consequently, during this period editorial comments may be submitted and, exceptionally, objections if any aspect is discovered that was not considered in the discussion prior to determining consensus. Any new objections must also be substantiated and must therefore not be based on opinions lacking a technical justification.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'><br>**********************************************<br>IPv4 is over<br>Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br><a href="http://www.theipv6company.com">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>The IPv6 Company<br><br>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.<br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>RPD mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>-- <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za">mje@posix.co.za</a> Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: <a href="https://ftth.posix.co.za">https://ftth.posix.co.za</a><o:p></o:p></pre><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:ES-TRAD'>_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><br>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
http://www.theipv6company.com<br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</body></html>