In the past APNIC had multiple policy making SIGs. It was entirely possible for each of these groups to make policy independently and a potential conflict not be obvious until the report back at the AMM.

As the policy Sig is now the only policy making body within APNIC this is no longer a concern.

Another concern which has been raised during proposal discussion is that non-APNIC members are active participants in the OPM and that a 'check and balance' is required to protect APNIC from external influence. This seems to me to be at best an unintended consequence rather than the true reason for the call for consensus at the AMM.

I maintain that there are other checks and balances in place which provide this protection without requiring a purely ceremonial vestage.

The EC has to endorse any proposal. This alone would be enough to provide organisational protection. In addition to that however we require that any successful policy be returned to the mailing list for additional comments.

The consensus at the OPM is far from the end of the process for a policy, but we should not place rubberstamping hurdles in the way. This is why I feel that removing the call for consensus at the AMM is appropriate.

While addressing your second point I discovered a subtle mistake in the proposal. It is intact the AMM meeting chair who call and decides on consensus at the AMM not the policy Sig chair.

The proposal allow for the policy Sig chair to elect to call for AMM consensus if they feel that it would be appropriate, clearly this should have been the AMM meeting chair. I will release a new version of the proposal this morning to reflect this correction.

On Aug 27, 2013 6:53 AM, "TACHIBANA toshio" <toshio@aniani.com> wrote:

I have a clarify question as follows.

What is a purpose of consensus call at the AMM?
Who can decide consensus about policy sig report at AMM?

Best regards,
---
TACHIBANA toshio

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Andy Linton <asjl@lpnz.org> 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