I'm Toshio Tachibana, a chair of policy development forum in Japan.
Izumi-san inform about APNIC PDP related discussion on lastest policy
development forum event in Japan.
Major feedbacks from the JP community on Suggested changes to the APNIC
Policy Development Process as follows.
+ Several positive feedbacks about shortening the comment period on
the mailing list after the meeting consensus.
It will also help in faciliating Policy Development Process in
Japan, as it clarifies the decision of the APNIC forum at early
stage when discussing the proposal in Japan.
+ A mild question about the necessity to remove AMM consensus.
AMM serves as an endorsement from APNIC members and serves a
different purpose from consensus at Policy SIG, so not quite sure
AMM consensus process should be removed from the process without
considering this point.
+ It is ambiguous whether consensus is taken in each step and
independent process or, the all steps altogether is considered
consensus. It will effect in considering the process, so should
first clearly define this first.
I hope these comments and opinions would help in the discussions.
Good Morning,
Below is a draft problem statement which looks to resolve a number of
process inconsistencies highlighted by Yamanishi-san's presentation at
APNIC35.
This Problem Statement purposely does not propose a solution to any of
the 3 problems highlighed within.
It is the authors' intent that this Problem Statement should be first
endorsed by the community and then solutions worked on collaboratively
within this group.
Please comment on both the Problem Statement as it exists as well as
any solutions you may have to address the issues contained.
Kind Regards,
Dean Pemberton
prop-10x-v001: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process
Co-authors: Izumi Okutani
izumi@nic.ad.jp
Dean Pemberton
dean@internetnz.net.nz
- 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.
- 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 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.
- Objective of Policy Change
To optimise and/or disambiguate procedures carried out under the
current APNIC PDP.
- Proposed Policy Solution
To be developed in consultation with the community via the Policy-SIG
mailing list.
- Pros/Cons
Advantages:
To be developed in consultation with the community via the Policy-SIG
mailing list.
Disadvantages:
To be developed in consultation with the community via the Policy-SIG
mailing list.
- Impact on APNIC
To be developed in consultation with the community via the Policy-SIG
mailing list.
- References
[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-poi...
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy