LACNIC Staff's Interpretation of the Proposal
Author:
Jordi Palet Martinez
Applicability:
This proposal introduces changes to the PDP.
Modifications to the current text:
The proposal modifies section 2. Definition of Consensus.
Proposed Text:
2. Definition of ‘Consensus’
…
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 over the course of its various versions, and when there are no irrefutable technical objections.
Consensus shall also be understood to exist in the case of simple or explanatory proposals which, despite not receiving any comments, have not been the subject of any objections, and proposals that are practically editorial in nature or evidently necessary for the Community. This may also be the case when discussions have already taken place in relation to prior similar proposals.
LACNIC Staff Comments:
1) This paragraph introduces a series of subjective elements such as "simple proposals," "practically editorial in nature," and "evidently necessary."
2) Regarding the last sentence, we believe it would not be appropriate to declare consensus by assuming that a proposal is similar to another that was indeed discussed.
We interpret that the paragraph seeks to find a way to advance proposals that have not been discussed, which, in our opinion, goes against the spirit of deciding by consensus.
3) It is more dangerous for the author to demand that consensus be declared because the PDP says so and pressure the chairs to declare consensus on a proposal that has not been discussed, than for a proposal not to reach consensus due to lack of participation, regardless of how relevant the proposal may be.
Recommendations:
1) We recommend rethinking this proposal as a method for solving a problem and, if appropriate, incorporating general considerations that can support the chairs in their analysis of consensus rather than strict rules for the definition of consensus.
Impact of the policy on the registry and/or other systems
This proposal does not impact any of the systems. Its implementation would be immediate.
This proposal seeks to update the PDP to clarify a small doubt relating to the definition of consensus.
Rationale (Describe the problem you intend to solve)The current text of Section 2. of the PDP contains the definition of consensus, as well as a paragraph summarizing how consensus should be interpreted.
This paragraph, however, introduces language that may cause confusion when interpreting that consensus cannot be declared when there have been no comments on a specific version of a proposal, even when there have indeed been comments on earlier versions of the same proposal which were precisely the reason for the new version, i.e., the new version addresses objections previously received.
Some proposals may also be practically editorial in nature or may correct defects of policies or the PDP in force, and will therefore not necessarily receive comments, as one cannot object to something that is obvious to everyone.
While it would be desirable for a proposal to receive at least comments “for” (even if these are void of content), the idiosyncrasy of these communities is such that this type of comment is not often submitted, and this should not be a barrier to declaring consensus in such obvious cases.
This modification is necessary, because otherwise the possibility of declaring consensus is excessively dependent on the reasonable subjectivity of the chairs in their literal interpretation of this paragraph of the PDP, as has become manifest on several occasions.
Current text2. Definition of ‘Consensus’
…
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.
2. Definition of ‘Consensus’
…
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 over the course of its various versions, and when there are no irrefutable technical objections.
Consensus shall also be understood to exist in the case of simple or explanatory proposals which, despite not receiving any comments, have not been the subject of any objections, and proposals that are practically editorial in nature or evidently necessary for the Community. This may also be the case when discussions have already taken place in relation to prior similar proposals.
Additional information-
Timetable-
References-
Presented at:LACNIC 39 (10/05/2023)