Good Evening David.

You make some good points here, but I am undecided if they are significant enough to stick with the status quo, as opposed to moving forward with the position as proposed in prop-108.

As you say, you are dealing with worst case scenarios which may have been more common in the past when more policies were being considered.  Of late we have not seen proposals where not having an AMM consensus would have made a significant difference.  I believe it is therefore sensible to revisit the requirement for such a mechanism.

You highlight two situations for concern:

(a) For confirmation that the membership of APNIC (as distinct from the unregulated SIG forum) agrees with the proposed policies;
and
(b) For time to clarify any uncertainty about what has been discussed and nominally decided

I believe that the first one of these is catered for by allowing the chair the discretion to call for consensus at the AMM if they feel such a call is necessary.  A significant amount of input from non-APNIC members could be one of the situations under which the chair may feel it necessary to call for consensus at the AMM.  Prop-108 looks to remove the burden of *having* to call for consensus however.

The second concern I believe is covered by allowing the chair and co-chair additional time to consider consensus during the OPM as put forward in part A of prop-108.  This would allow the chair and co-chair time to discuss a proposal and consider if there are any issues of concern.

I'd like to gauge how strongly other members of the community support the position that you put forward.  Please, if you believe that consensus at the AMM is still required, post to the mailing list outline your position. 


Kind Regards,
Dean

--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz

To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:16 PM, David Woodgate <dwoodgate5@gmail.com> wrote:

I am not comfortable with the proposed removal of the consensus call from the AMM for the following reasons:

The Open Policy Meeting welcomes the participation of anyone with a valid contribution to make to policy development, no matter from which region of the world they may come - and I certainly believe that the discussion and outcomes of the development process are much stronger because of the experience of those contributors.

However, I have witnessed meetings at which some discussions on important proposals have been dominated by visitors outside of APNIC and from beyond the Asia-Pacific region, and it has not always been clear that those discussions have fully engaged the APNIC membership.

Also, there have been some complicated debates whereby the final forms of the proposals decided by the meeting have not been immediately clear, and a full understanding of those decisions have only become evident after the meeting has been completed.

So I believe that having a few minutes on the following day at the AMM for a consensus call allows:
(a) For confirmation that the membership of APNIC (as distinct from the unregulated SIG forum) agrees with the proposed policies;
(b) For time to clarify any uncertainty about what has been discussed and nominally decided

The report of the outcomes of the SIG would still be required at the AMM anyway; adding a quick consensus call only typically adds a couple of minutes (at most) to the report, unless something has gone very wrong with the decisions from the Open Policy Meeting, in which case you would want this time at the AMM to discuss that - which is why I believe the AMM consensus calls should remain.

(I'm consciously asking for consideration of "worst case" scenarios here; I think it is a testament to the good will and cooperation of all concerned that the AMM consensus calls do agree with the OPM decisions as the norm, but I believe we should be prepared for circumstances to arise occasionally for which that is not the case.)

I therefore do not support the proposal as currently written.

With best regards,

    David Woodgate



On 19/07/2013 7:46 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-108-v001: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy
Development Process" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It
will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 36 in Xi'an, China, on
Thursday, 29 August 2013.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
before the meeting.

The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:

      - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
      - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
        tell the community about your situation.
      - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
      - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
      - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
        effective?


Information about this policy proposals is available from:

     http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/108

Andy, Masato


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

prop-108-v001: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process

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

Proposers:     Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz>
                Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>


1.  Introduction
----------------

At APNIC 35 in Singapore, Policy-SIG co-chair Masato Yamanishi delivered
a presentation [PSIG35-1] outlining a number of inconsistencies or areas
of sub-optimisation within the documentation governing the current APNIC
Policy Development Process.  This policy proposal outlines the exact
parts of the documentation that are inconsistent or do not match with
the reality of how the process is implemented.  It also describes the
problems that each of these inconsistencies cause. It seeks to offer
ways to change the required documentation to optimise the APNIC PDP in
these areas in collaboration with the community.


2.  Problem Statement
---------------------

Yamanishi-san highlighted a number of inconsistencies in his
presentation.  This proposal seeks to address three of these, which are
related to the process of the consensus decisions, as they are a core
part of the Policy Development Process (PDP).

The relevant steps in the PDP [APNICPDP-1] to be addressed in this
proposal are presented below for reference purposes:

   - 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.

   - Step 3
     Discussion after the OPM Proposals that have reached consensus at
     the OPM will be circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing list for a
     period of eight weeks. This is known as the "comment period".


A) Timing Requirements for the Policy-SIG chairs to announce consensus
    in the Open Policy Meeting (OPM)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Consensus must be
    reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting
    for the process to continue.”

    While neither the PDP document nor the SIG Guidelines specify the
    timing of consensus, current practice is for the chairs to decide if
    consensus has been reached immediately after calling for consensus
    from the floor. This does not allow enough time for the chairs to
    make their consensus decision based on the consideration of various
    factors raised from the floor as well as discussion among themselves.

    In recent meetings there have been situations where consensus has
    been particularly hard to gauge.  This may be due to a smaller number
    of strongly held opinions, or an even split between supporters and
    objectors.  In these cases it may assist the Policy-SIG chairs in
    returning an appropriate decision if more time was afforded them for
    internal discussion.  This is particularly relevant where there might
    be disagreement between the Chairs.


B) Requiring for consensus to be called and demonstrated at the AMM
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    As above Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Consensus
    must be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member
    Meeting for the process to continue.”

    In practice today this is followed exactly.  At the OPM a policy
    proposal is required to gain consensus, and then the same consensus
    is required to be shown at the AMM on the next day.  While this may
    not be considered a real problem, it can not be argued that it is an
    effective use of time and resources.

    This process of calling for consensus once in the OPM and again at
    the AMM has its history in the days when different SIGs, working in
    isolation, may have produced conflicting policies at same meeting.
    Calling for consensus at the AMM was a way for these conflicts to
    come to light and give the community a final chance to support one
    but not both of the policies proposed by the different SIGs.

    At APNIC today the Policy-SIG is only SIG that has a mandate to
    propose policy changes.  As such the process of calling for consensus
    at the OPM as well as the AMM is redundant.  If members have
    objections, they can are free to participate in the OPM which is held
    the day before the AMM in the same venue.


C) The length of the required comment period for successful policy
    proposals after the AMM
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    As above Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Proposals
    that have reached consensus at the OPM will be circulated on the
    appropriate SIG mailing list for a period of eight weeks. This is
    known as the "comment period".

    In practice, once a proposal has been through discussion on the
    mailing list, been presented an OPM for further discussion, and
    successfully demonstrated consensus of the community, there are
    little or no comments generated within the eight week subsequent
    comment period. Most concerns are raised within two weeks after the
    call for final comments.  It should also be noted that there has not
    been a case where a new opinion raised more than four weeks after the
    call for final comments. Chairs should be able to judge whether there
    are substantial concerns for the consensus within a shorter period.

    Eight weeks is a significant amount of time to allow for additional
    comments after a policy proposal has gained consensus at the OPM.  It
    is in fact longer than the entire discussion period under which the
    proposal was presented.

    At present all the 8 week comment period serves to do is
    significantly delay the implementation of policy which been
    demonstrated to have the consensus of the community.


3. Objective of Policy Change
---------------------------

To optimise and/or disambiguate procedures carried out under the current
APNIC PDP.


4. Proposed Policy Solution
---------------------------

This section will propose changes which seek to resolve the problems
outlined above.


A) Timing Requirements for the Policy-SIG chairs to announce consensus
    in the Open Policy Meeting (OPM)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to ensure that the SIG chairs have time to discuss any
    issues relevant to considering consensus for or against a proposal,
    the first paragraph of Step 2 of the PDP should be replaced with:

    --------[APNICPDP-1]--------

    Step 2. Consensus at the OPM

    Consensus is defined as "general agreement" as observed by the Chair
    of the meeting.  The Chair, at their sole discretion, may wish to
    confer with their Co-Chairs before judging consensus.  This
    discussion may occur in private and the final determination of
    consensus should be given by the Chair before the end of the OPM.

    The Chair should ensure that it is made clear if consensus is
    currently being gauged on part of a proposal, or the proposal in its
    entirety.  This will ensure that OPM participants are clear in their
    responses.

    --------[APNICPDP-1]--------


B) Requiring for consensus to be called and demonstrated at the AMM
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to relax the requirement for some policies to gain consensus
    at both the OPM and the Member Meeting, the second paragraph of Step
    2 of the PDP should be replaced with:

    --------[APNICPDP-1]--------

    Consensus must be reached at the SIG session.  The SIG Chair may, at
    their sole discretion, seek an additional call for consensus at the
    Member Meeting for the process to continue. If the call for consensus
    on a proposal at either of these forums is not successful, the SIG
    (either on the mailing list or at a future OPM) will discuss whether
    to amend the proposal or to withdraw it.

    --------[APNICPDP-1]--------


C) The length of the required comment period for successful policy
    proposals after the AMM
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to allow for the shortening of this period, Step 2 of the
    PDP should be replaced with:

    --------[APNICPDP-1]--------

    Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM will be circulated
    on the appropriate SIG mailing list for a period, the duration will
    not be shorter than two weeks but may be extended on a case-by-case
    basis at the sole discretion of the Chair.  This is known as the
    "comment period".

    --------[APNICPDP-1]--------


5.  Pros/Cons
-------------

Advantages:

    The changes outlined above will ensure that the APNIC PDP is kept
    inline with best current practice of the operation of the SIGs

Disadvantages:

    There is a possibility that by removing a requirement for consensus
    at the AMM that APNIC members not present at the OPM may not feel
    that they have endorsed a proposal.  Given that the OPM occurs the
    day before the AMM in the same location, it would not be unreasonable
    to assume that any interested party would have already provided
    feedback during the OPM however.


6.  Impact on APNIC
-------------------

These changes will ensure that the development of policy within APNIC
continues to occur in a standardised, consistent framework.


7.  References
------------------

[APNICPDP-1] APNIC policy development process - 19 February 2004
Accessed from http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/policy-development.txt

[PSIG35-1] Yamanishi, M., “APNIC35 Policy-SIG Informational: Questions
for Clarification in the APNIC PDP”, APNIC 35, Singapore, 28 February
2013.  Accessed from
http://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/58992/ambiguouts
-points-in-pdp-2013027_1361972669.pdf
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy