Modification of the PDP to improve the quality of proposals and increase participation in the policy development process

PDP Chair Election Procedure

Assessment: Consistent · On the PDP chair election procedure, the participant maintains opposition to the more complex proposal while accepting that prior mailing-list participation could be required through a narrow amendment. That exception qualifies the objection; it does not reverse it.

Conditions: The preferred approach preserves community self-management and requires a clear reason to replace the existing procedure. · The evidence concerns these June 2020 exchanges, not approval or rejection of every later version.

Jun 29, 2020

Porque el mecanismo actual es mucho m?s basado en la comunidad. Es la propia comunidad que se autogestiona.

Jun 30, 2020

Alcanzar?a con una propuesta que solamente agregue este punto espec?fico.

Jun 30, 2020

Como dije antes. Bueno y simple, doblemente bueno.

Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy List

Assessment: Consistent · Opposition to a new policy-list acceptable-use policy rests on the view that existing tools can handle the incidents described. The participant leaves room for additional tools if an unresolved gap is demonstrated, rather than denying that incidents occurred.

Conditions: The assessment of existing remedies is the participant's stated view, not an independently established measure of their effectiveness. · The objection is to adding a general policy for the cited problems under the circumstances discussed.

Aug 19, 2020

Mi opini?n es que no se necesita una PUA, por lo cual ni siquiera debo comentar el punto 2.

Aug 19, 2020

Si en alg?n momento queda evidente que existen problemas que no se pueden resolver con las herramientas disponibles (por ej. el c?digo de conducta), tendr?a sentido desde mi punto de vista, buscar nuevas herramientas, pero no creo que sea el caso en este momento.

Aug 19, 2020

No se puede hacer una pol?tica general para resolver temas puntuales.

Adoption of policy proposals for discussion at the Public Policy Forum, Discussion List and call for consensus as working documents.

Assessment: Consistent · Support for making proposals working documents concerns a way to focus discussion and address repeated, unsupported proposals. It remains support for the problem and direction, with the choice of mechanism open; the participant explicitly treats effects on participation as speculative.

Conditions: A process change must preserve the freedom to propose and discuss ideas. · These messages do not establish that the proposed mechanism improves participation or endorse every clause.

Sep 18, 2020

Ser? esta u otra propuesta, eso ya lo veremos, pero el concepto es muy apropiado.

Sep 21, 2020

Como no lo conozco, lo ?nico que puedo hacer es especular.

Sep 21, 2020

La propuesta de Arturo es una opci?n. Si esa opci?n no es la mejor para algunos, hay que buscar otra, pero el problema hay que resolverlo.

Modification of the PDP to improve the quality of proposals and increase participation in the policy development process

Assessment: Consistent · The two early responses on improving the PDP welcome combining alternative approaches and including a broad range of views. They support collaborative process design, without resolving the details of a final proposal.

Conditions: Combining ideas is not equivalent to endorsing every provision of either proposal. · Only these two early contributions support this finding.

Sep 21, 2020

Tal vez deber?an trabajar en una combinaci?n de ambas propuestas.

Sep 22, 2020

Hagamos lo posible por incluir tantas visiones como sea posible.

Add IPv6 operational as a requirement for IPv4 transfers

Assessment: Consistent · The participant supports wider IPv6 deployment but repeatedly rejects making IPv6 operation a condition of IPv4 transfers. The dispute concerns the means, expected effect and proper scope of resource policy, not the IPv6 objective or a categorical rejection of operational requirements.

Conditions: The participant accepts that policies can impose requirements and affect markets, while disputing the appropriate trade-off in this case. · Training, coordination and operator engagement are preferred approaches in these messages; their comparative effectiveness is not proven here.

Apr 11, 2021

comparto el esp?ritu que fundamenta la propuesta pero NO la apoyo

Apr 12, 2021

No apoyo esta pol?tica porque no me parece el camino adecuado

Apr 14, 2021

La discusi?n se basa en donde colocar el punto de equilibrio (o el trade off) y cuales requerimientos apuntan al uso eficiente del recurso que se asigna y cuales implican otro tipo de obligaciones.

Non-Competition Between Proposals

Assessment: Consistent · Opposition to non-competition between proposals remains consistent with treating policy-list contributions as freely usable community work. The participant distinguishes those contributions from separately published research whose author may retain intellectual-property rights; that distinction is not a reversal on ownership of policy proposals.

Conditions: Attribution remains appropriate even where policy contributions are freely reusable. · The distinction addresses policy contributions and separately published research, not every possible intellectual-property dispute.

Apr 16, 2021

Estoy totalmente en contra de esta propuesta.

Apr 23, 2021

Creo que las contribuciones que se hacen en esta lista en relaci?n a pol?ticas de manejo de recursos de numeraci?n de Internet, deben ser p?blicas y de uso libre de la comunidad.

Apr 23, 2021

El autor puede publicar el art?culo en otro lado, aplicar las reglas de propiedad intelectual que le parezcan m?s conveniente y luego hacer una referencia a esa publicaci?n desde la propuesta de pol?tica.

Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy List · Adoption of policy proposals for discussion at the Public Policy Forum, Discussion List and call for consensus as working documents.

Assessment: Consistent · Rejecting a new acceptable-use policy while supporting discussion-process reform is a qualified distinction: the participant sees existing remedies as adequate in the former case and an unresolved agenda problem in the latter. The shared criterion is a concrete need for change, not opposition to all procedures.

Conditions: The existence and scale of each problem are the participant's assessments in these exchanges. · Support for an agenda remedy remains open to alternatives and does not establish its effect on participation.

Aug 19, 2020

Si en alg?n momento queda evidente que existen problemas que no se pueden resolver con las herramientas disponibles (por ej. el c?digo de conducta), tendr?a sentido desde mi punto de vista, buscar nuevas herramientas, pero no creo que sea el caso en este momento.

Sep 21, 2020

La propuesta de Arturo es una opci?n. Si esa opci?n no es la mejor para algunos, hay que buscar otra, pero el problema hay que resolverlo.

Modification of the PDP to improve the quality of proposals and increase participation in the policy development process · Non-Competition Between Proposals

Assessment: Consistent · Encouraging authors to combine PDP ideas fits the later rejection of exclusive control over policy-list contributions. Both positions favor collective policy development, while leaving room for attribution and rights in separately published research.

Conditions: This comparison does not treat every form of intellectual property as incompatible with open participation. · It describes the positions in the cited exchanges, not a universal rule attributed to the participant.

Sep 21, 2020

Tal vez deber?an trabajar en una combinaci?n de ambas propuestas.

Sep 22, 2020

Hagamos lo posible por incluir tantas visiones como sea posible.

Apr 23, 2021

Creo que las contribuciones que se hacen en esta lista en relaci?n a pol?ticas de manejo de recursos de numeraci?n de Internet, deben ser p?blicas y de uso libre de la comunidad.