Re: [sig-policy]Revised APNIC Policy Process - Proposal

  • To: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy]Revised APNIC Policy Process - Proposal
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 18:53:48 -0700
  • Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • 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>
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306111654320.9643-100000@durian.apnic.net>
  • Sender: sig-policy-admin@lists.apnic.net
    • 
        Thank you Anne for passing this along.  I have only one question
      and/or concern.  That being, how is "Consensus" determined or
      otherwise factually delineated?  Where, or is the definition of
      "Consensus" defined for Apnic's purposes?
      
      Anne Lord wrote:
      
      > Dear colleagues,
      >
      > 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,
      >
      > Anne
      >
      > ___________________________________________________________
      >
      > 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:
      >
      > http://www.apnic.net/meetings/15/sigs/policy/docs/
      > addpol-prop-apnic-doc-review.doc
      >
      > 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:
      > http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/index.html
      >
      > 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
      > discussion'(5).
      >
      > 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
      > informal.
      >
      > 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
      > members?'
      >
      > 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
      > it.
      >
      > 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
      >   weeks)
      >
      > 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:
      > http://www.apnic.net/images/other/policy-dev-20030611.gif
      >
      > 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:
      > http://www.apnic.net/meetings/15/schedule/index.html
      >
      > () Special Interest Groups:
      > http://www.apnic.net/meetings/archive/sigs/index.html
      >
      > (4) APNIC policy process
      > http://www.apnic.net/meetings/15/sigs/policy/docs/
      > addrpol-pres-anne-policy-process.ppt
      >
      > (5) APNIC policy process - provoking discussion:
      > http://www.apnic.net/meetings/15/sigs/policy/docs/
      > addrpol-pres-randy-policy-process-discussion.pdf
      >
      > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-policy mailing list
      > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
      
      Regards,
      
      --
      Jeffrey A. Williams
      Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
      "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
          Pierre Abelard
      ===============================================================
      CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
      Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
      E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
      Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801