[sig-policy]Revised APNIC Policy Process - Proposal

  • To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Subject: [sig-policy]Revised APNIC Policy Process - Proposal
  • From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:09:04 +1000 (EST)
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Sender: sig-policy-admin@lists.apnic.net
      The text below is a revised proposal for developing policy 
      in the APNIC region. It is based upon input received from
      the last APNIC meeting.
      This proposal should be read together with a companion
      proposal which will be postly to this shortly, which describes 
      an amended APNIC document editorial policy. 
      Comments and feedback are now sought on both proposals and
      should be made on this list.
      warm regards,
      A revised proposal for an amended APNIC open policy process
      Proposed by: Anne Lord, Randy Bush
      Version: draft 2.0
      Date: 10 June 2003
      1. Summary
      This document proposes a modified process for developing policies for 
      managing Internet resources in the Asia Pacific region. 
      This proposal is based upon input and discussion at the APNIC Open Policy 
      meeting at APNIC15 in Taipei, February 27, 2003 and on the 
      sig-policy at apnic dot net mailing list. It is to be used as a basis for 
      continued discussion on the mailing list.
      Note that a revised editorial process is being proposed to implement 
      consensus policy decisions and will be circulated on the 
      sig-policy at apnic dot net mailing list. This was presented in draft at APNIC15 
      and is archived at: 
      2. Background and problem
      APNIC operates in a self-regulatory environment where the policies for 
      managing Internet resources in the Asia Pacific region are created through 
      open, consensus based processes.
      The processes for creating policy are evolving. APNIC has held open and 
      public meetings since 1995(1). The early meetings were much simpler in 
      structure and content than the meetings held today(), where multiple 
      sessions run in parallel over several days, and attendees convene in 
      groups according to topics of special interest().
      The current processes for creating policy are documented at: 
      and were presented at APNIC15 for review and discussion(4). 
      While APNIC policy processes are open to all interested parties, there has 
      been feedback to suggest that there is still insufficient opportunity for 
      review and input from all constituencies in the policy development 
      process. Specific suggestions for improvement were made at the Address 
      Policy SIG at APNIC15 in a presentation 'APNIC policy process - provoking 
      3. Other Regions
      In the other RIR regions, reviews of the policy development processes have 
      recently taken place with discussions still ongoing. Please refer to the 
      individual RIR websites for details:
      * http://www.arin.net
      * http://www.lacnic.net
      * http://www.ripe.net
      3.1. RIPE
      The processes for developing policy within the RIPE region are relatively 
      Proposals are normally sent to the relevant working group mailing list, 
      however this is not a formal requirement in order for consideration within 
      a RIPE meeting. A presentation and discussion may then take place at the 
      working group session during the RIPE meeting. A measure of consensus to 
      proceed with the proposal is taken at that meeting. The working group is 
      empowered to make decisions and it reports its outcomes to the plenary 
      session of the RIPE meeting. 
      A summary of the outcome of discussions at the working group meeting is 
      sent to the working group mailing list, usually with a deadline for 
      comment. If the comment period expires and there are no major objections, 
      the proposal will be implemented.
      3.2. ARIN
      Full details of the ARIN policy process are described at: 
      * http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html
      Key elements of the process include:
      * Formal period of 4 weeks for proposals to be circulated on a mailing 
      list, prior to presentation at an ARIN meeting;
      * Formal period of 10 days after a meeting for gathering input on 
      decisions from the meeting;
      * Advisory Council of 15 volunteer individuals whose responsibility it is 
      to judge whether consensus has been reached on a particular proposal;
      * Board of Trustees who ratify any proposed policies before they can be 
      accepted and implemented.
      3.3. LACNIC 
      The process for developing policies for managing address space in the 
      LACNIC region is initiated by the identification of a need for a new or 
      revised policy, followed by the formation of a small working group (of no 
      more than 7 volunteers) who work on particular policy proposals.  
      Proposals are circulated on mailing lists and are presented at the open 
      policy meeting. 
      Proposals on which consensus has been reached are then forwarded to the 
      LACNIC board who assist in defining an implementation schedule. The 
      working group is generally disbanded at this point.
      4. Proposal
      For any policy proposal requiring consensus decisions of the APNIC 
      Membership, the following procedure is proposed:
      4.1. Discussion before the OPM
      A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to 
      the SIG Chair 4 weeks before the start of the OPM.
      The proposal must be in writing and in text which clearly expresses the 
      proposal, with explicit mention of any changes being proposed to existing 
      policies and the reasons for those changes. 
      It is suggested to use a format for the proposal that includes an 
      introduction, a summary of the current problem, the proposal, and 
      advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed policy. It is useful 
      to also review the comparable policy situation in the other RIR regions 
      (if applicable) and include a section entitled 'how it will affect APNIC 
      If the above deadline is not met, proposals may still be submitted and 
      presented for discussion at the meeting; however, no decision may be made 
      by the meeting regarding the proposal.  The proposal will need to be 
      resubmitted in time for the following meeting if the author wishes to 
      pursue the proposal.
      4.2. 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 
      Members 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 
      4.3. Discussion after the OPM 
      Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM will be circulated on the 
      appropriate SIG mailing list for a defined 'comment period'.  
      Two options have been put forward for the length of the comment period:
      * Option 1 - 8 weeks or
      * Option 2 - until 4 weeks before the next OPM (which is approximately 26 
      4.4. Confirming consensus
      Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial objections 
      raised during the 'comment period'. When the 'comment period' has expired, 
      the appropriate SIG chair (and co-chairs) will decide whether the 
      discussions on the mailing list represent continued consensus.
      If the chair (and co-chairs) observe that there are no 'substantial 
      objections' to the proposed policy, consensus is confirmed and the process 
      continues as outlined in section 4.5 below.
      If it is observed that there have been 'substantial objections' raised to 
      the proposed policy, consensus is not confirmed and the proposal will not 
      be implemented. 
      The SIG will then discuss (either on the mailing list or in the SIG) 
      whether to pursue the proposal or withdraw it.
      4.5. Endorsement from the EC
      The EC, in their capacity as representatives of the membership, will be 
      asked to endorse the consensus proposals arising from the OPM and the SIG 
      mailing lists for implementation at the next EC meeting. In reviewing the 
      proposals for implementation, the EC may refer proposals back to the SIG 
      for further discussion with clearly stated reasons. 
      As per the APNIC By-laws, the EC may, at its discretion, refer the 
      endorsement to a formal vote of adoption by the APNIC members.
      4.6. Implementation
      In both options above, a 12 weeks period is allowed for implementation. 
      This gives the Secretariat and the NIRs sufficient time to make internal 
      changes to forms and procedures, as well as gives the community sufficient 
      advance notification of the new policy.
      4.7. Duration of the process
      Under option 1 the minimum amount of time that a policy could take from 
      the initial proposal to implementation would be 26 weeks. Under option 2 
      it would be 43 weeks.
      4.8. Flow diagram of policy process
      The revised flow diagram for developing policy is available at:
      5. Implementation
      This proposal will be implemented upon formal endorsement by APNIC. 
      6. References
      (1) 1st APNIC Meeting: http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/meetings/Jan95/agenda
      () 15th APNIC Open Policy Meeting: 
      () Special Interest Groups: 
      (4) APNIC policy process 
      (5) APNIC policy process - provoking discussion: