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

Erik Bais erik at bais.name
Tue May 11 13:10:27 -03 2021

Hi Jordi,  

I was wondering myself as well..  however ..  

The Title:  LAC-2021-2: Non-Competition Between Proposals 

And in the actual proposed policy text :  

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.

As a policy author, there is no first come first served .. if the second proposer has a better idea, better wording or is just better in putting it to paper or the audience.. the second author could get consensus where the first author fails.  

As chair for AP-WG in the RIPE region, we try to avoid 'competing' policies, but if one isn't able to get consensus ( mostly due to either the author(s) or the way that they explain / stand on the specific text and push-back they receive) there is no other way. 
It is most of the time confusion for the community .. people might/will mix the 2 proposals in ML responses etc.. but if the actual problem is fixed on version 2.0 of someone else.. it gets the job done. 

If your intent is to get a similar system in LACNIC as what we do currently with the RIPE AP-WG on getting the author / proposer to waive their if any rights on the text before publication, this policy proposal makes even less sense to me. 

How I read this is that the initial proposer can block a policy and obtains a first right of refusal to cooperate or doesn't allow someone else to propose something similar but different.. 

I still would be strongly against said policy. 

Erik Bais  

On 11/05/2021, 17:50, "Politicas on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas" <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net on behalf of politicas at lacnic.net> 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.
    El 11/5/21 17:43, "Erik Bais" <erik at bais.name> escribió:
        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. 
        Erik Bais
        Internet citizen 
    IPv4 is over
    Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    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

More information about the Politicas mailing list