So it seems that we have two sets of requirements.
I firmly believe that we need to put something in place which assists
authors in gauging community reaction to a Problem Statement or
possible solutions without requiring them to go through the full
process of drafting up a policy.
I can also see that there is a strong feeling that this might not be
required for all authors, or even all proposals.
The obvious middle ground is to make the framework available, but not mandatory.
Here is one suggestion on how this could be achieved. I had a great
graphical flowchart prepared, but in the spirit of accessibility, I'll
stick to ASCII.
*Step 1: The Idea*
Everyone who has ever proposed a policy has started with an idea.
Maybe it's due to a challenge they are facing, but it could also be in
response to an opportunity which has presented itself, which the
current policies do not allow.
*Step 2: Can you describe a well defined Problem Statement?*
If yes - go to Step 3.
if no - The idea is posted to the Policy-SIG list outlining a
problem or issue with the current APNIC policies. This need be no
more than the first paragraph in this email. It is purely a place to
start discussion and attempt to produce a well defined Problem
Statement. Once the author is happy that they can articulate a clear,
well defined problem statement they move to Step 3.
*Step 3: Place the Problem Statement into the draft policy template
and move on.*
*Step 4: Can you provide a well defined solution to the problem which
will gain community consensus?*
If yes - go to Step 5.
If no - The proposer posts the Problem Statement to the Policy-SIG
list and leads a conversation to develop
possible solutions. Once the author is satisfied that they have a
solution to the problem statement, they move to Step 5.
*Step 5: Place the preferred solution into the draft policy template
and move on.*
*Step 6: Can you provide a set of possible impacts which the policy
will incur upon implementation?*
If yes - go to Step 7.
If no - The proposer can use the Policy-SIG list to engage the
community and the APNIC secretariat on what the possible impacts of
the proposed solution may be. Once the author is satisfied that they
have a concise set of policy impacts, they move to Step 7.
*Step 7: Place the possible impacts into the draft policy template and move on.*
*Step 8: Submit the draft policy to the Policy-SIG Chair."
The Policy-SIG chair will decide if they believe the policy proposal
fulfils the requirements of a draft policy ready to be presented at an
APNIC meeting.
If he/she decides that it is deficient in any area, they may decide to
suggest that the author move back to Step 2, 4 or 6 to address the
deficiency.
If the Policy-SIG chair determines that the policy proposal fits the
criteria, then it will proceed through the rest of the PDP.
Here are two case studies to illustrate how this works for both groups.
1) From Randy Whitney:
"There are also policy wonks out that are fully
capable of defining both broad problems and reasonable solutions not
requiring further, time-wasting debate."
Step 1 - Policy wonk has an idea
Step 2 - Policy wonk has a problem statement
Step 3 - Policy wonk places this in the policy proposal
Step 4 - Policy wonk has a solution
Step 5 - Policy wonk places this in the policy proposal
Step 6 - Policy wonk assesses impact
Step 7 - Policy wonk places this in the policy proposal
Step 8 - Policy wonk submits to the Policy-SIG for assessment.
2) Alternate:
Step 1 - Author has an idea
Step 2 - Author does not have a well defined problem statement, but
through posts to the mailing list one is developed which the Author is
happy with.
Step 3 - Author places this in the policy proposal
Step 4 - Author works with the community on the mailing list to
develop possible solutions. One is developed that they are happy
with.
Step 5 - Author places this in the policy proposal
Step 6 - Author works with APNIC secretariat and the community to
assess policy impact
Step 7 - Author places this in the policy proposal
Step 8 - Author submits to the Policy-SIG for assessment.
So as you can see, both solutions are catered for.
You can take the fast track, you can take the track with more
community consultation.
Do people think that this sort of approach gives the flexibility for
proposals to be presented directly to the Policy-SIG chair as well as
a framework put in place to help authors engage with the community if
they wish.
Regards,
Dean