LAC-2018-12: Minor revision to the PDP

Información General

Español
17/09/2018
Implementada
100 %.

Jordi Palet Martinez - Versión [1, 2]
Discussão inicial
14/09/2018
Últimos Comentários
24/11/2018 - 21/12/2018
Ratificação da diretoria
28/12/2018
Implementada
23/01/2019

Resumen

LACNIC's Policy Development Process (PDP) was modified less than a year ago. Since it’s been in use, a minor flaw has been detected which can be very easily corrected.

This flaw is that, if a policy proposal does not reach consensus and the comments it receives are not enough to show the authors “the way forward,” as written, the current text would force the authors to “artificially” submit a new version in order to keep the original proposal under discussion.

Justificación

This proposal suggests a minor modification to the text which would allow a proposal to continue under discussion when the chairs and the authors believe it is reasonable to do so, without the need for the author to submit a new version with an “artificial” modification to keep the proposal within the PDP cycle.

Texto Actual

Current text:

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs

o If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to publish a new version or abandon the proposal. If a new version is submitted, the 8-week discussion period must be restarted.

New text:

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs

o If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to publish a new version, maintain the current version or abandon the proposal. If a new version is submitted, the 8-week discussion period must be restarted.

Texto Nuevo
Oprima aquí para ver/ocultar las diferencias entre el texto actual y el nuevo

Current text:

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs

o If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to publish a new version or abandon the proposal. If a new version is submitted, the 8-week discussion period must be restarted.

New text:

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs

o If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to publish a new version, maintain the current version or abandon the proposal. If a new version is submitted, the 8-week discussion period must be restarted.

Información Adicional

Each RIR has its own PDP. However, in some RIRs such as RIPE, the chairs already have the option of allowing a policy proposal to remain under discussion without the need for a new version.

Tiempo de Implementacion

Immediate implementation

Referencias

Policy Development Process in RIPE: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642


Resumen

LACNIC's Policy Development Process (PDP) was modified less than a year ago. Since it’s been in use, a minor flaw has been detected which can be very easily corrected.

This flaw is that, if a policy proposal does not reach consensus and the comments it receives are not enough to show the author “the way forward,” as written, the current text would force the authors to “artificially” submit a new version in order to keep the original proposal under discussion.

Justificación

This proposal suggests a minor modification to the text which would allow a proposal to continue under discussion when the chairs and the authors believe it is reasonable to do so, without the need for the author to submit a new version with an “artificial” modification to keep the proposal within the PDP cycle.

In addition, it would avoid staff “overhead” due to having to transate a new version with “artificial” modifications.

Texto Actual

Current text:

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs

o If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to publish a new version or abandon the proposal. If a new version is submitted, the 8-week discussion period must be restarted. New text: 3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs

New Text:

o If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to continue to discuss the proposal (either the same version or a new version) or to abandon the proposal. If the decision is to continue to discuss the proposal, the 8-week discussion period must be restarted.

Texto Nuevo
Oprima aquí para ver/ocultar las diferencias entre el texto actual y el nuevo

Current text:

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs

o If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to publish a new version or abandon the proposal. If a new version is submitted, the 8-week discussion period must be restarted. New text: 3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs

New Text:

o If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to continue to discuss the proposal (either the same version or a new version) or to abandon the proposal. If the decision is to continue to discuss the proposal, the 8-week discussion period must be restarted.

Información Adicional

Each RIR has its own PDP. However, in some RIRs such as RIPE, the chairs already have the option of allowing a policy proposal to remain under discussion without the need for a new version.

Tiempo de Implementacion

Immediate implementation

Referencias

PDP in RIPE: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642