[LACNIC/Politicas] [LACNIC / Policies] New proposal LAC-2021-2 / Nova proposta LAC-2021-2 / New proposal LAC-2021-2

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Oscar,

No, this is what the Bern convention on the IP right say *even if we don't have such text in the PDP*.

The fact that the chairs don't do that check put them (or LACNIC/organization), in a situation of liability.

Granting the rights protects against this, but it should be well balanced with community members that *instead of working with existing authors on an existing proposal under discussion* decide to copy it and send it *in parallel* with the existing discussion. And all this is probably what Erick has missed.

Erick talks about an abandoned proposal (or existing policy that has already reached consensus), so it can be retaken by new authors: This is right and this is what the granting of the rights from the original authors avoids.

What doesn't make *any* sense, is that an existing policy *under discussion* has a copy by another set of authors,  because this is basically ruining the PDP goal: try to find consensus thru the discussion.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 11/5/21 18:08, "Politicas en nombre de Oscar A. Robles-Garay" <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de oscar at lacnic.net> escribió:

    on the other hand, Erick got it right, because your proposed test says:

        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.

    that is exactly what Erick is referring to, this text "only the first 
    proposal to be received will be admitted".

    That, de facto, is granting rights to authors, and I still think that 
    would be so unfortunate for the community.


    Oscar

    On 11/5/21 12:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas wrote:
    > Hi Erick,
    >
    > I'm not sure if is because the translation, but I believe you got it wrong.
    >
    > This proposal doesn't grant rights to the author of the proposal, but in the other way around, the proposal does the SAME as RIPE NCC is doing: ensuring that the authors waive the rights over the proposal to LACNIC.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Jordi
    > @jordipalet
    >   
    >   
    >
    > El 11/5/21 17:43, "Erik Bais" <erik at bais.name> escribió:
    >
    >      Hi,
    >
    >      This policy idea came to my attention, especially since it mentioned RIPE policy.. and retaining rights..
    >      I can't read the complete policy discussion as it is in Spanish, but I hope that I can provide some insight here.
    >
    >      My name is Erik Bais and I am currently co-chair for Address policy working group (AP-WG) in the RIPE region.  ( stating this as experience, not stating that I'm writing this on behalf of the RIPE community or as AP-WG Co-chair )
    >      I've written multiple RIPE policies, mostly around resource transfers, but also about IPv6, RPKI and other topics.
    >
    >      As an author of policy text, the RIPE community doesn't grand or the RIPE NCC doesn't grand 'RIGHTS' to the author.
    >      If the author of the proposed text isn't able to obtain consensus, it is possible for someone else to restart a new proposal and see if that would get the consensus of the community.
    >
    >      It isn't common that policy proposals are written in such a way that it changes small items .. or even copied proposed text or idea's.
    >
    >      Probably one of the reasons why that is the case, is because we as co-Chairs, ask the proposers to first check with the WG (on the mailing list) to see if their idea would even work or get consensus.
    >
    >      Yes it is not uncommon that some idea is send to the mailing list .. and there is a lot of pushback .. or even a shared idea about how it could work other than the proposal / idea from the proposer ...
    >      By doing such a small step, it will allow the audience / the WG, to get adjusted to the idea, provide feedback and before the initial 0.1 version is send as a policy proposal, it will already be better than just sending a proposal that was created without feedback from the community.
    >
    >      On the topic of Rights.. before publication, the proposer is asked to waive ANY rights via a text set by the legal department of the RIPE NCC.
    >      The reason being is that the proposer can't limit or restrict access to the policy or contributions and that the proposer waives any economic rights or
    >      demand any compensation for doing any work on the policy proposal. And that any contribution can be changed or deleted in the future ...
    >
    >      The work in proposing policies in the community is unpaid and for the good of the internet and it isn't in the spirit of the RIPE community that an author / proposer will obtain or retain rights to text or policy ideas.
    >
    >      I hope that this clarifies how the RIPE community is dealing with this in PDP.
    >      I would be strongly against a said suggestion to provide rights to a policy author in any RIR.
    >
    >      Regards,
    >      Erik Bais
    >      Internet citizen
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > **********************************************
    > IPv4 is over
    > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    > http://www.theipv6company.com
    > The IPv6 Company
    >
    > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > Politicas mailing list
    > Politicas at lacnic.net
    > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
    _______________________________________________
    Politicas mailing list
    Politicas at lacnic.net
    https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.