-------------------------------------------------------

prop-134-v002: PDP Update

-------------------------------------------------------

Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
          jordi.palet@theipv6company.com    


1. Problem statement
-------------------------------------------------------
The actual PDP doesn’t support the usage of electronic means to “measure” the consensus. 
However, “Confer” is being used. This should be clarified, or otherwise the process is not 
fair (remote participants don’t know about it reading the PDP) and can be considered a 
violation of the PDP itself.

The PDP also don’t have a formal process to withdraw a proposal, and doesn’t force the authors 
to keep editing it according the community inputs, or otherwise, allow the SIG chairs to 
declared it as expired.

Finally, as editorial change, the expression “rough consensus” (RFC7282) is used instead of 
“general agreement”, so it is consistent with the actual practice.


2. Objective of policy change
-------------------------------------------------------
To resolve the issues above indicated.


3. Situation in other regions
-------------------------------------------------------
The PDP is different in the different RIRs.


4. Proposed policy solution
-------------------------------------------------------

Actual Text
Step 2: Consensus at the OPM
Consensus is defined as “general agreement” as observed by the Chair of the meeting. Consensus must 
be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting for the process to continue. 
If there is no consensus on a proposal at either of these forums, the SIG (either on the mailing list 
or at a future OPM) will discuss whether to amend the proposal or to withdraw it.


Proposed Text
Step 2: Consensus Determination
Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” (RFC 7282) as observed by the Chairs.

Consensus is determined first considering the SIG mailing list, other electronic means, and the SIG session, 
and afterwards at the Member Meeting.

If there is no consensus on a proposal, the authors can decide to withdraw it. Otherwise, the proposal will 
be considered as expired by the next OPM, unless a new version is provided, restarting the discussions with 
the community.


5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-------------------------------------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objectives above indicated and making sure that there is no formal discrimination with community 
members that aren’t able to travel so they know that they can participate via the Confer or other systems 
developed by the secretariat.


Disadvantages:
None foreseen.


6. Impact on resource holders
-------------------------------------------------------
None.


7. References
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lacnic.net/679/2/lacnic/policy-development-process
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710