Minor revision to the PDP

LAC-2018-12-v1 LAC-2018-12-v2 Vs
References:
New
Deleted
Modified
Authors

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

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

Summary

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

LACNIC's Policy Development Process (PDP) was modified less than a year ago. Since it’s been in use, a minor flaw has be
en 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 i
n 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 t
he chairs and the authors believe it is reasonable to do so, without the need for the author to submit a new version wit
h an “artificial” modification to keep the proposal within the PDP cycle.

This proposal suggests a minor modification to the text which would allow a proposal to continue under discussion when t
he chairs and the authors believe it is reasonable to do so, without the need for the author to submit a new version wit
h 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
o If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to publish a new version, m
aintain the current version or abandon the proposal. If a new version is submitted, the 8-week discussion period must be
restarted.

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 discus
s 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 pr
oposal to remain under discussion without the need for a new version.

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

References

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

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