Minor revision to the PDP

Original Language Español Date Published 14/09/2018 Last Modified 17/09/2018
Last Call for Comments Period Does not apply Date Ratified Does not apply Implementation Date Does not apply
Status Under discussion Download TXT PDF XML DOCX
See other versions 1.0 2.0 (compare)

Authors

Name: Jordi Palet Martinez
Email: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
Organization: The IPv6 Company

Proposal Data

Policy Type: LACNIC
Id: LAC-2018-12
Last version: 2
Presented at: LACNIC 30 Presentations:

Summary

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.

Rationale

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.

Text

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.

Additional Information

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.

Timetable

Immediate implementation

References

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

Public Comments by LACNIC Staff

LACNIC STAFF´S IMPACT ANALYSIS - Proposal LAC-2018-12 - versión 2

LACNIC Staff's Interpretation of the Proposal
---------------------------------------------

Applicability
------------
This proposal modifies the Policy Development Process (PDP) currently in force http://www.lacnic.net/542/1/lacnic/


Modifications to the current text
---------------------------------
The proposal modifies the PDP:

• Modification of Section “3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs” to:
• 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.

LACNIC Staff Comments:
--------------------------
Under the current text, there are only two possible options for a proposal that does not achieve consensus:
• Submitting a new version of the proposal
• Abandoning the proposal
LAC-2018-12 adds the option for the proposal to continue under discussion without the need to present a new version, as was the case before the implementation of LAC-2018-10: Simplification of the PDP.

Impact of the policy on the registration system and address management
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal would not require any changes to the registration system.

Privacy Policy