Summary

This proposal incorporates various changes and clarifications to the PDP based on different interpretations of recent years and shortens the text where possible.

Rationale (Describe the problem you intend to solve)

The current text in section 3.2.1 specifies that the functions of the chairs include the decision to “abandon a policy”, when in fact it should read “abandon a proposal.” Furthermore, in Spanish, the term “abandonar” is the translation of the term used in other PDPs that were written in English.

“Abandonar” (abandon) implies that no further attention is paid to the matter. However, when it is the intentional decision of the authors, the correct term is “retirar” (withdraw).

In fact, this allows differentiating the case where the authors of a policy proposal “disappear” from the community or stop paying attention to their proposal – in which case the proposal is clearly “abandoned” – and one where a proposal is “withdrawn,” either because a similar proposal has reached consensus or because the authors decide that it is not necessary to continue its discussion.

On the other hand, a policy proposal may sometimes include different aspects which can be considered independent and perfectly separable. In this case, some aspects can be considered to have reached consensus (the community supports them and there are no objections), even when other aspects are still under discussion.

In this context, in order to facilitate the discussion (or withdrawal of the aspects that do not reach consensus), just as they do in the APNIC region, it makes sense for the chairs to declare partial consensus and, as a result, to split the proposal in two, one of which (the part that has reached consensus) will advance to the last call for comments period.

This streamlines the decision-making process for the community and relieves the PDP when several proposals are under discussion.

Finally, under last call for comments, the PDP mentions editorial changes, yet it has recently become evident that it is not clear what can and cannot be considered an editorial change, so it is essential to define this. In addition, it is reasonable for these changes to undergo at least a last call for comments period, otherwise it would create vulnerability for the community.

Current text

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs
…

• 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 the decision is to continue to discuss the proposal, the 8-week discussion period must be restarted.
• To publish a 4-week last call for comments for any proposal that reaches consensus.
• Within 1 week of the end of the last call for comments, to confirm whether consensus is maintained (in which case the proposal is sent to the LACNIC Board for ratification) or decide together with the author(s) if they wish to submit an updated version of the proposal to the Public Policy List and restart the discussion period.
• To communicate through the Policy List the results of the ratification by the LACNIC Board of those policies that reached consensus and received no observations during the last call for comments, not more than one week after the publication of the minutes of the Board meeting during which the ratification was decided.

6. Last call for comments

The purpose of the last call for comments 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.

New text
Analyze diff

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs
…

• If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to publish a new version or withdraw the proposal. If the decision is to continue to discuss the proposal, the eight-week discussion period must be restarted.
• A proposal may also be withdrawn by its authors, even if it has reached consensus.
• The chairs may decide that partial consensus has been reached when parts of the text are supported by the community and it is possible to separate such parts from the rest of the proposal by dividing the it in two and proceeding to the last call for comments period for the part that has achieved consensus.
• To publish a four-week last call for comments period for any proposal that reaches consensus. In case of editorial changes, a new sub-version of the proposal must be published, and the last call for comments period must be restarted.
• Within one week of the end of the last call for comments period, to confirm whether consensus is maintained (in which case the proposal is sent to the Board for ratification) or decide together with the author(s) if they wish to submit an updated version of the proposal to the Policy List and restart the discussion period.
• To communicate to the Policy List the results of the ratification by the LACNIC Board, not more than one week after the minutes of the Board meeting during which the ratification was decided are published.

6. Last call for comments

The purpose of the last call for comments is to provide the community with a brief and final opportunity to comment on the proposal, especially to those who did not do so earlier.

This allows introducing editorial changes (spelling, grammar, stylistic or similar modifications), provided that the text that has reached consensus does not lose any of its details, not even those that are merely informative. The idea is that “new readers” who have not participated in the discussion will have the same information that reached consensus.

Exceptionally, objections may be raised if an 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.

Additional information

-

Timetable

-

References

-

Presented at:

-

Summary

This proposal incorporates various changes and clarifications to the PDP based on different interpretations made in recent years and shortens the text where possible.

Rationale (Describe the problem you intend to solve)

The current text in section 3.2.1 specifies that the functions of the chairs include the decision to “abandon a policy”, when in fact it should read “abandon a proposal.” Furthermore, in Spanish, the term “abandonar” used in the policy has its origin in the translation of the term used in other PDPs that were originally written in English.

In Spanish, however, “abandonar” (abandon) implies that no further attention is paid to a matter, that it is simply “left behind” due to a lack of interest or neglect. Instead, when this is an intentional decision by the authors, the correct term would be “retirar” (withdraw).

In fact, this allows differentiating a case where the authors of a policy proposal “disappear” from the community or stop paying attention to their proposal —in which case the proposal is clearly “abandoned”— and one where a proposal is “withdrawn,” either because a similar proposal has reached consensus or because the authors have decided that it is no longer necessary to continue its discussion.

On the other hand, a policy proposal may sometimes include different aspects which can be considered independent and may be easily separated. In this case, some aspects can be considered to have reached consensus (the community supports them and there are no objections), even if other aspects continue under discussion.

In this context, in order to facilitate the discussion (or withdrawal of the aspects that do not reach consensus), just as they do in the APNIC region, it would make sense for the chairs to declare partial consensus and, as a result, to split the proposal into two parts, one of which (the part that has reached consensus) can advance to the last call for comments.

This would streamline the decision-making process for the community and relieve the pressure on the PDP in case there are several proposals.

Finally, under last call for comments, the PDP mentions editorial changes, but it is not clear –as has recently become evident– what can and what cannot be considered an editorial change, so defining this is essential. In addition, it is reasonable for such changes to undergo at least a last-call-for-comments period, otherwise they would leave the community without any defense mechanism.

Current text

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs
…

• 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 the decision is to continue to discuss the proposal, the 8-week discussion period must be restarted.
• To publish a 4-week last call for comments for any proposal that reaches consensus.
• Within 1 week of the end of the last call for comments, to confirm whether consensus is maintained (in which case the proposal is sent to the LACNIC Board for ratification) or decide together with the author(s) if they wish to submit an updated version of the proposal to the Public Policy List and restart the discussion period.
• To communicate through the Policy List the results of the ratification by the LACNIC Board of those policies that reached consensus and received no observations during the last call for comments, not more than one week after the publication of the minutes of the Board meeting during which the ratification was decided.

6. Last call for comments

The purpose of the last call for comments 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.

New text
Analyze diff

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs
…

• If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to publish a new version or withdraw the proposal. If the decision is to continue to discuss the proposal, the eight-week discussion period must be restarted.
• A proposal may also be withdrawn by its authors, even if it has reached consensus and competing proposals have been presented to offer options to the community.
• The chairs may decide that partial consensus has been reached when parts of the text are supported by the community and it is possible to separate such parts from the rest of the proposal. In this case, the authors may divide the proposal in two and the part that has achieved consensus may move on to the last call for comments.
• To publish a four-week last call for comments period for any proposal that reaches consensus. In the case of editorial changes, a new version of the proposal must be published and the last call for comments period must be restarted.
• Within one week of the end of the last call for comments period, to confirm whether consensus is maintained (in which case the proposal will be sent to the Board for ratification) or decide together with the author(s) whether they wish to submit an updated version of the proposal to the Policy List and restart the discussion period.
• To communicate to the Policy List the results of the ratification by the LACNIC Board, not more than one week after the minutes of the Board meeting during which the ratification was decided are published.

6. Last call for comments

The purpose of the last call for comments is to provide the community with a brief and final opportunity to comment on the proposal, especially to those who did not do so earlier in the process.

This allows introducing editorial changes (spelling, grammar, style, or similar modifications), provided that the text that has reached consensus does not lose any of its details, not even those that are included merely for information purposes. The idea is that “new readers” who have not participated in the discussion will have the same information that reached consensus.

Exceptionally, objections may be raised if an 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 technical justification.

Additional information

-

Timetable

-

References

-

Presented at:

LACNIC35 (11/05/2021)

Summary

This proposal incorporates various changes and clarifications to the PDP based on different interpretations made in recent years and shortens the text where possible.

Rationale (Describe the problem you intend to solve)

The current text in section 3.2.1 specifies that the functions of the chairs include the decision to “abandon a policy”, when in fact it should read “abandon a proposal.” Furthermore, in Spanish, the term “abandonar” used in the policy has its origin in the translation of the term used in other PDPs that were originally written in English.

In Spanish, however, “abandonar” (abandon) implies that no further attention is paid to a matter, that it is simply “left behind” due to a lack of interest or neglect. Instead, when this is an intentional decision by the authors, the correct term would be “retirar” (withdraw).

In fact, this allows differentiating between a case where the authors of a policy proposal “disappear” from the community or stop paying attention to their proposal —in which case the proposal is clearly “abandoned”— and one where a proposal is “withdrawn,” either because a similar proposal has reached consensus or because the authors have decided that its discussion is no longer necessary.

Finally, under last call for comments, the PDP mentions editorial changes. However, as we've recently seen, it is evidently not clear what can and cannot be considered an editorial change, so defining this is essential. In addition, it is reasonable for such changes to undergo at least a last-call-for-comments period, otherwise the community would be left without any defense mechanism.

Current text

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs
…

• 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 the decision is to continue to discuss the proposal, the eight-week discussion period must be restarted.
• To publish a four-week last call for comments period for any proposal that reaches consensus.
• Within 1 week of the end of the last call for comments, to confirm whether consensus is maintained (in which case the proposal is sent to the LACNIC Board for ratification) or decide together with the author(s) if they wish to submit an updated version of the proposal to the Public Policy List and restart the discussion period.
• To communicate through the Policy List the results of the ratification by the LACNIC Board of those policies that reached consensus and received no observations during the last call for comments, not more than one week after the publication of the minutes of the Board meeting during which the ratification was decided.

6. Last call for comments

The purpose of the last call for comments is to provide the community with a brief and final opportunity to comment on the proposal, especially to those who did not 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 technical justification.

New text
Analyze diff

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs
…

• If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to publish a new version or withdraw the proposal. If the decision is to continue to discuss the proposal, the eight-week discussion period must be restarted.
• To publish a four-week last call for comments period for any proposal that reaches consensus. In the case of editorial changes, a new version of the proposal must be published and the last call for comments period must be restarted.
• Within one week of the end of the last call for comments period, to confirm whether consensus is maintained (in which case the proposal will be sent to the Board for ratification) or to decide together with the author(s) whether they wish to submit an updated version of the proposal to the Policy List and restart the discussion period.
• To notify the results of the ratification by the LACNIC Board to the community through the Policy List, not more than one week after the minutes of the Board meeting during which the ratification was decided are published.

6. Last call for comments

The purpose of the last call for comments is to provide the community with a brief and final opportunity to comment on the proposal, especially to those who did not do so earlier in the process.

This allows introducing editorial changes (spelling, grammar, style, or similar modifications), provided that the text that has reached consensus does not lose any of its details, not even those that are included merely for information purposes. The idea is that “new readers” who have not participated in the discussion will have the same information that reached consensus.

Exceptionally, objections may be raised if an 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 technical justification.

Additional information

-

Timetable

-

References

-

Presented at:

-