LAC-2020-6: Miscellaneous changes to the PDP

General Information

Español
21/04/2021
Under discussion
29 %. The next step will depend on moderator's decision.

Jordi Palet Martínez - Version [1, 2]
Initial discussion
23/04/2021 - 18/06/2021
First consensus
18/06/2021 - 02/07/2021

Public Comments by LACNIC Staff for this version

LACNIC Staff's Interpretation of the Proposal

Applicability:
This proposal suggests changes to the PDP.

Modifications to the current text:
This proposal would modify the following sections of the PDP:

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs
6. Last call for comments

Text of the Proposal:

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs

1. To publish the agenda of the upcoming Public Policy Forum on the Public Policy List at least 1 week prior to the start of the Forum, specifying, among other information, which policy proposals will be presented and discussed.
2. To prepare a report on the Public Policy Forum and submit it to the Public Policy List not more than one week after the end of the Forum.
3. To post a call for the discussion of any proposal presented by the community on the Public Policy List, including a reminder that the discussion period for each policy proposal is at least 8 weeks and at most the time required for the proposal to be presented at the Public Policy Forum. Consensus may not be called for if a proposal has not been presented and debated in at least one Public Policy Forum.
4. At any time during the discussion period, to decide together with the author(s) whether it is advisable to review a proposal and, if so, whether it is necessary to restart the discussion period or whether the changes are minor and/or expected to achieve consensus and therefore allow the same discussion period to continue.
5. To announce whether consensus has been reached within a maximum of 2 weeks after the discussion period has ended.
6. 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.
7. A proposal may also be withdrawn by its authors, even if it has reached consensus and competing proposals have been presented to offer options to the community.

8. 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.

9. To publish a four-week last call for comments period for any proposal that reaches consensus. In case of editorial changes, a new version of the proposal must be published and the last call for comments period must be restarted.

10. 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.

11. 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 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.

Differences from the previous version:

v1:
A proposal may also be withdrawn by its authors, even if it has reached consensus.

v2:
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.

v1:
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) in order to proceed to the last call for the part that has achieved consensus.

v2:
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.

v1:
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 must be restarted.

v2:
To publish a four-week last call for comments period for any proposal that reaches consensus. In case of editorial changes, a new version of the proposal must be published and the last call for comments period must be restarted.

LACNIC Staff Comments:

Regarding the changes proposed for section 3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs:

1) Regarding item #7, we reiterate the comment included in the impact analysis we prepared for the previous version of this policy proposal: once a proposal reaches consensus, we believe that the community has already decided that it is pertinent, so the authors should not have the power to withdraw the proposal at this stage. We also believe that this item is not covered by the responsibilities of the chairs.

In addition, regarding the text added in this new version which mentions “competing proposals,” it is important to bear in mind that the PDP does not currently include the notion of “competing proposals,” so there is no basis for this choice of words.

2) Regarding item #8, we notice that this new version clarifies that it will be up to the authors to divide the proposal into different parts considering those that have reached consensus. However, we reiterate that the community should always have the possibility of discussing the merits of any new proposal and that a new proposal should not advance directly to a last call for comments period, even if it has been part of earlier discussions, as the fact that no objections have been raised regarding certain points does not mean that consensus has been reached. The community often chooses which points to discuss, and the items that remain in any new proposal that might be generated are not necessarily worthy of consensus.

The chairs should be able to consider the proposal in its entirety, not based on partial analyses conducted when certain points were part of a broader original proposal.

Exposing the chairs to the pressure of having to declare partial consensus on a part of a proposal might generate counterproductive incentives for the chairs to decide on texts that have not been sufficiently discussed because the community has prioritized other parts of the proposal.

3) In item #9, the term “sub-version” has been replaced with the term “version”. We have once again assessed the impact of this paragraph on the proposal and believe that it positive, as it removes a discretionary aspect of the current PDP which might potentially cause a problem in the future. While this increases the time needed for the process in case of editorial changes, we believe the additional time is merited.

Recommendations

Regarding the changes proposed in section 3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs:

1. Eliminate item #7 from the proposal.
2. Eliminate item #8 from the proposal.

Official References:
--------------------------------------------------------
Similar proposals at other RIRs
Something similar to this exists in APNIC, but it is not written into the PDP. Sometimes, based on the community's input during an Open Policy Meeting (OPM), the Policy SIG chairs agree to call for consensus on certain parts of a proposal. Of course, not only the community but also the author of the proposal must agree to this.

Impact of the policy on the registry and/or other systems
--------------------------------------------------------
The approval of this proposal would have a direct impact on LACNIC's policy system.


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

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

-


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

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

-