Nombre: Jordi Palet Martinez
Email: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
Organización: The IPv6 Company

Nombre: Jordi Palet Martinez
Email: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
Organización: The IPv6 Company

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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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, maintain 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 pcontinuble to discuss the proposal n(eithewr the same version, or maintain the currentew version) or to abandon the proposal. If a nthew vdercision is submito continue to discuss the proposal, 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

o If consensus is not reached, to decide together with the author(s) whether they would like to publish a new version, maintain 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 pcontinuble to discuss the proposal n(eithewr the same version, or maintain the currentew version) or to abandon the proposal. If a nthew vdercision is submito continue to discuss the proposal, the 8-week discussion period must be restarted.

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.

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.

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

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