This proposal seeks to avoid competition between proposals, which is counterproductive for the community and might even constitute plagiarism. It also takes the opportunity to clarify/sort the text of the section where this change is introduced.

This proposal modifies some aspekcts tof avhow policy proposals are published so that they will reflect the current reality omf the procetss. In addition, it bexplicitwly specifies that, once a proposals, whichs published, counterpyroductivght belongs ftor the community, and mighseeks to eavenoid consmpetituion between plagiroposals wherie posmsible. It also estakblishes a maximum of 6 months for the submission of new versions of a proposal. Finally, it uses this opportunity to clarify/sort the text of the section where this change is inectrioducedn.

It might be the case that one or more authors present a proposal and, at any time during its discussion, another author or authors may use the same ideas, even the same texts, to draft a competing proposal, simply because, in their opinion, having one proposal compete against the other is easier than trying to achieve consensus, which might require more time and a greater number of versions.

When a proposal does not reach consensus after “n” versions are presented, it would be unthinkable for other persons to take over the original ideas, even when they may modify them, and submit a new proposal, in which case, instead of having one proposal under discussion we would have several proposals competing for the attention of the community and creating confusion.

The appropriation of ideas, concepts, texts, works, or the like constitutes plagiarism, an infringement of copyright, and cannot be encouraged or consented to by the PDP, not only because of the legal implications it may have for the authors and even for LACNIC for sponsoring this, but also, even more importantly within our context, because it is contrary to the idea of consensus. Everyone should be able to contribute to the original idea and improve on it through consensus, while still respecting the rights of the original authors.

We are not referring to a situation where the same author (or authors) presents several proposals competing “against each other,” as this is an alternative that has proven to be valid and very useful in various RIRs for reaching consensus on one of them, using different options as a starting point and therefore avoiding multiple PDP cycles by having the possibility of discussing them in parallel rather than in series.

Neither are we referring to a situation where a problem arises and there are different alternatives or solutions, presented by different authors, who do not appropriate themselves of any ideas but instead present ideas that are complementary or radically different.

On the other hand, the PDP must also protect the community against situations where one or more authors present a proposal that is necessary and later abandon it, stop replying to comments, and/or discontinue their participation in the policy process, in which case others can, if applicable, continue with this work while still respecting the original rights of the original author (or authors) when using these ideas outside of LACNIC.

In addition, this proposal fixes an error in the text of the same section of the PDP regarding the way in which proposals are submitted, as the order is reversed with respect to reality, and updates the order of the text of the entire section.

It might be the case that oOne or more authors might present a proposal and, at any time during its discussion, another author or authors mayight use the same ideas, even the same texts, to draft a competing proposal, simply because, in their opinion, having one proposal compete against the other iswould be easier than trying to achieve consensus, which might require more time and a greater number of versions.

When a proposal does not reach consensus after “n” versions are presented, it would be unthinkable for other persons to take over the original ideas, even when they may modify them, and submit a new proposal, in which case, instead of having one proposal under discussion we would have several proposals competing for the attention of the community and creating confusion.

The appropriation of ideas, concepts, texts, works, or the like constitutes plagiarism, an infringement of copyright, and cannot be encouraged or consented to by the PDP, not only because of the legal implications it may have for the authors and even for LACNIC for sponsoring this, but also, even more importantly within our context, because it is contrary to the idea of consensus. Everyone should be able to contribute to the original idea and improve on it through consensus, while still respecting the rights of the original authors.

We are not referring to a situation where the same author (or authors) presents several proposals competing “against each other,” as this is an alternative that has proven to be valid and very useful in various RIRs for reaching consensus on one of them, using different options as a starting point and therefore avoiding multiple PDP cycles by having the possibility of discussing them in parallel rather than ione safteri thes other.

Neither are we referring to a situation where a problem arises and there are different alternatives or solutions, presented by different authors, who do not appropriate themselves of anythe others’ ideas but instead present ideas that are complementary or radically different.

On the other hand, the PDP must also protect the community against situations where one or more authors present a proposal that isolves anec exissating pryoblem, andyet later abandon ithe proposal, stop replying to comments, and/or discontinue their participation in the policy development process,. iIn wthichs case, others can,should ifbe applicable, to continue with thise work while still respecting the original rights of the original author (or authors) when using these ideas outside of LACNIC.

In addition, this proposal fixcorrects an error in the text of the same section of the PDP regarding the oway in which proposals are submitted, as the order is reversed with respect to reality, and updates the order of the text of the entire section.

3.1. Public Policy List
o Proposals must be submitted using the online form available at https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/. Once a policy proposal has been reviewed, it will be assigned an identification code and sent to the discussion list. The maximum time allowed for reviewing and publishing the proposal on the Public Policy List must not exceed two weeks. This review will only address the text itself, not the merit of the proposal.

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of PDP Chairs
…

3.1. Public Policy List
o Proposals must be submitted using the online form available at https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/. Once a policy proposal has been reviewed, it will be assigned an identification code and sent to the discussion list. The maximum time allowed for reviewing and publishing the proposal on the Public Policy List must not exceed two weeks. This review will only address the text itself, not the merit of the proposal.

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of PDPthe Chairs
…o ..

3.1. Public Policy List
o Proposals must be submitted using the online form available at https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/ and they will automatically be assigned an identification code.
o LACNIC will ask the authors for written confirmation, signed with a digital certificate or its equivalent, of the transfer of the copyright of the proposal solely within the context of LACNIC, to protect the community and to allow the continuity of the proposal in case it is abandoned or its authors cease to respond.
o LACNIC will review the text of the policy, not its merits, and may suggest to the authors editorial changes as well as alternative titles in case the title can be shortened or if it has already been used.
o LACNIC will confirm with the chairs that there are no other competing proposals submitted by other authors that could be construed as plagiarism.
o If two competing proposals are submitted simultaneously (prior to their publication), the LACNIC staff and the PDP chairs will attempt to coordinate with the authors how to merge both proposals. If this were not possible, only the first proposal to be received will be admitted.
o An attempt will also be made to coordinate the merger of complementary proposals.
o In order to guarantee transparency, proposals that are not accepted will include the words “Not Accepted” in their status as well as the reasons for their non-acceptance.
o The timeline for the steps described above, publishing the proposal on LACNIC's Policy System and its announcement on the Public Policy List should not exceed two weeks.
o If a proposal which has not reached consensus is not updated by its authors within a maximum period of six months, its status will be changed to “Abandoned” and, if necessary, it may be resumed by other authors.

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs
o If the discussion of different but competing proposals were to overlap (even partially), in order to ensure that they are treated neutrally and that the community can choose the best option, the timeline of the latest version to be presented will be used for both, such that they are presented one after the other and the consensus of both is decided jointly.

3.1. Public Policy List
o Proposals must be submitted using the online form available at https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/ and they will automatically be assigned an identification code.
o LACNICs part willof athisk form, the authors for writtenll confirmation, signed with a digital certificathey oagr its equivalent, of theo transfer of thesign copyright of the proposal (solely within the context of LACNIC), to protecting the community and to allow the continuity ofg the proposal to continue in case it is abandoned or its authors cease to respond.
o LACNIC will review the text of the policy, not its merits, and may suggest to the authors editorial changes as well as alternative titles in case the title can be shortened or if it has already been used.
o LACNIC will confirm with the chairs that there are no other competing proposals submitted by other authors that could be construed as plagiarism.
o If two competing proposals are submitted simultaneously (prior to their publication), the LACNIC staff and the PDP chairs will attempt to coordinate with the authors how to merge both proposals. If this were not possible, only the first proposal to be received will be admitted.
o An attempt will also be made to coordinate the merger of complementary proposals.
o In order to guarantee transparency, proposals that are not accepted will include the words “Not Accepted” in their status as well as the reasons for their non-acceptance.
o The timeline for the steps described above, publishing the proposal on LACNIC's Policy System and its announcement on the Public Policy List should not exceed two weeks.
o If a proposal which has not reached consensus is not updated by its authors within a maximum period of six months, its status will be changed to “Abandoned” and, if necessary, it may be resumed by other authors.

3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of the Chairs
o If the discDussion of differeintg but compheting proptwosals -werek to ovperlap (eveniod partially), in order to ensure that they aire treated neputralbly and that the community can choose the best optiong, thery timeline of the latest versicon to be presedinated will be used for both, such that they are spresencted onive afutehors the othmer and thger of consmpetinsusg ofr bcoth is dmplecidmed jointlary proposals.

-

-