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.

1. 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.

1. Objective of Policy Change

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

1. 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]--------

1. 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.

1. Impact on APNIC

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

1. 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