My suggested changes to the PDP are as follows:

. A Problem Statement 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 of this email. It is purely a place to
start discussion.

. The proposer leads conversation on the Policy-SIG list to develop
possible solutions to this Problem Statement. I have referenced the
proposer here and given them a responsibility because I want the
expectation to be that they are involved in the discussion and open to
feedback from the community. It would be too easy to have a proposer
post a problem statement followed by a solution without any
discussion. We would be in the same situation we are today.

. At this stage the APNIC Secretariat can comment if they consider
that the Problem Statement can be covered within current policies. As
we have seen recently, it is possible that some problems can be solved
within the existing policies purely through discussion with the
secretariat. Rather than being excluded from these discussions, the
APNIC Secretariat should feel empowered to offer feedback on how the
problem could be solved within the existing policy framework.

. When the proposer feels that they have a solution to their Problem
Statement, they draft a policy and submit it in a similar fashion as
occurs currently within the PDP. There is no time limit on how short
or how long this might take. I do not want to preclude that in
serious situations this may all happen on a single day. It may take
months to get a solution which people feel they can get consensus on.
The important thing is that when you go infront of the policy-sig at a
meeting, you should know what the community feels about your proposal.