Summary

This proposal rectifies errors in the PDP related to the step-by-step procedure for submitting a new proposal or a new version of a previously submitted proposal, while also clarifying the responsibilities of the staff and chairs in this regard.

It also avoids a recurring issue: the arbitrary limitation of the length of the fields in the proposal submission form.

The procedure applied in the policy system does not match the description provided in the PDP, an obvious non-compliance. It is true that this non-compliance is not in bad faith; on the contrary, it is completely practical and has proven to be effective for years. However, this does not mean that the PDP cannot be corrected (to avoid the non-compliance), otherwise the procedure would have to be modified. The latter does not make sense, as its effectiveness has been demonstrated. In fact, other proposals have already tried to solve this (although it was not the main topic addressed by those proposals), but since they did not reach consensus, the issue remains pending as the years go by.

At the same time, associated with this procedure, the following sentence has been added: “This review will only address the text itself, not the merit of the proposal.” This is not sufficiently clear as to what the specific role of the staff and/or the chairs is in this regard. This has already caused various clashes, delays, and inconsistencies which, in the end, remain unsolved or involve appeal upon appeal, when full and objective clarity should be expected.

Furthermore, the text mentions policies, when in fact it refers to a version of a proposal.

Rationale (Describe the problem you intend to solve)

It is important to establish that:
1) The review referred to by the PDP is strictly editorial in nature and seeks to facilitate the community's understanding of a version of a proposal, considering the existence of different variants of Spanish as well as the fact that, during this first step (introduction of a proposal to the PDP), only the authors can accept the changes, as any doubts will be resolved when the entire community discusses the proposal (as opposed to only the staff and chairs).
2) Neither the chairs nor the staff may demand corrections to a version of a proposal or reject it (except in cases where the text clearly violates the Code of Conduct, and even then it would be relative, as past occurrences have demonstrated that the interpretation of the wording of the Code of Conduct may be subjective and has never been approved by the community), or refers to something that is clearly outside the scope of the PDP (for example, “the sex of angels”). Otherwise, it would represent unacceptable prior censorship and subjectivity, which goes against consensus. The PDP has never attributed or attempted to grant the chairs or the staff the authority to decide whether to adopt or reject a proposal before its discussion.
3) In the PDP, the community is sovereign and above members (and therefore LACNIC as an organization), and only the community can reject a text, which is precisely what consensus is about. Only the community itself can decide if the wording of a text is not clear or if the topic is unacceptable.
4) The PDP is and should be very clear regarding the powers of the chairs and staff, who may only do what is explicitly stated in the PDP. Otherwise, we would risk descending into a cycle of subjectivity depending on the individuals serving as PDP chairs or the LACNIC staff dealing with these issues.
5) Therefore, it must be acknowledged that any aspect directly or indirectly related to Internet number resources is within the scope of the PDP.
6) Moreover, there is a final stage where the board must ratify a proposal or not (if the community adopts something that could have unacceptable implications for LACNIC as an organization). This is precisely what allows the community to draw the attention of the LACNIC board (and members) to aspects for improvement or resolution, particularly as there is no open mailing list other than the Policy list that allows not only members but also the community to openly discuss all kinds of issues.
7) All of this was confirmed by the community after 2020, as several proposals were discussed for incorporating a process prior to the adoption of a proposal, and did not reach consensus, even more so considering that these proposals placed the adoption process in the hands of the community itself, and never in those of the chairs or the staff.
8) RIRs are established under the ICP-2 (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en), which is currently under review because it is understood that this document is not only about compliance with certain requirements for the establishment of an RIR —in this case LACNIC— but also to review that these conditions are maintained over time. These conditions include the bottom-up governance process for establishing policies, as well as their neutrality, and prior censorship would automatically imply non-compliance with these conditions.

Finally, the recurring issue that arbitrarily limits the length of some fields in the proposal submission form is solved.

Current text

3.1. Public Policy List
…
• 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.
…

New text
Analyze diff

3.1. Public Policy List
…
• Each version of a proposal must be submitted using the online form available at https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/. This form may not limit the extension of the various sections. The policy system will automatically assign each proposal an identification code. The chairs and LACNIC may review and suggest improvements to the text, but only the author will have the authority to accept any changes. The maximum time allowed for reviewing and publishing the version of the proposal on the Public Policy List may not exceed two weeks. This review will only address the text of the new version, not its merits or its compliance with the PDP. Publishing may only be avoided if the text is in clear and objective non-compliance with the LACNIC Code of Conduct, or if the proposal is not directly or indirectly relevant to Internet number resources.
…

Additional information

Except for ARIN which has a “pseudo-PDP” with a proposal adoption and editing committee (AC) and which relegates authors once a proposal has been introduced, the other RIRs do not grant the chairs or the staff the authority to censor either the wording or the content of a proposal.

In the case of RIPE, authors receive assistance in revising the wording, but ultimately it is their sole responsibility to accept or reject the changes proposed by the RIPE NCC.

The step-by-step procedures for introducing a proposal are different in each RIR.

Timetable

-

References

-

Presented at:

LACNIC 41 (08/05/2024)