Re: [sig-policy]Proposal for an APNIC document editorial policy

  • To: Gerard Ross <gerard at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy]Proposal for an APNIC document editorial policy
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 18:55:05 -0700
  • Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>,<>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>,<>
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <>
  • Sender:
        Agreed! >:)
      Gerard Ross wrote:
      > Dear colleagues
      > The text below is a proposal to modify the current APNIC document
      > review policy to create a simple editorial process that would be used
      > to implement consensus decisions reached through the APNIC policy
      > development process.
      > This proposal should be read together with the Revised APNIC Policy
      > Process Proposal, which was posted to this list earlier today.
      > Comments and feedback are now sought on both proposals and should be
      > made on this list.
      > Kind regards
      > Gerard Ross
      > APNIC Documentation Manager
      > --------------------------------------
      > [addpol-prop-apnic-doc-review-v4.txt]
      > ______________________________________________________
      > A proposal for an APNIC document editorial policy
      > ______________________________________________________
      >         Proposed by: APNIC
      >         Version: draft 4.0
      >         Date: 11 June 2003
      > 1 Summary
      > ----------------
      > This document proposes modifying the current document review policy
      > which is described in "APNIC Document review policies and procedures",
      > available at:
      > It is proposed to modify the current document to take full account of
      > the effect of consensus decisions reached through the APNIC policy
      > development process and to provide a separate, simple editorial process.
      > An earlier version of this proposal was discussed at APNIC 15. The
      > nature of the discussions held at that meeting have been taken into
      > account in preparing this current version.
      > 2 Background and problem
      > ----------------
      > APNIC's policies are developed by the membership and the broader
      > Internet community through a bottom-up process of consultation and
      > consensus.
      > APNIC holds two face-to-face APNIC Open Policy Meetings each year.
      > Anyone may attend the meetings and participate in discussions and
      > decision making. The Open Policy Meetings comprise many different
      > elements, but core to the policy development process are the Special
      > Interest Groups (SIGs) and the APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). At the SIG
      > meetings, and throughout the year on the associated mailing lists,
      > policy is created and refined through discussion and consensus-based
      > decision making. Participants at the Member Meeting are asked to
      > endorse the policy outcomes of the SIGs.
      > However, the current document review policy was originally developed
      > when the APNIC policy development process was less well defined,
      > particularly in relation to the role of the SIGs. The current policy
      > document combines the decision making process and the editorial
      > process. It focuses on a process of "calls for comment" but does not
      > adequately address the status of decisions which have emerged from the
      > SIG process and reached consensus at the AMMs.
      > The current document  review policy also describes a set of categories
      > for review, which determine the number and length of calls for
      > comments. However, the role of the SIGs has evolved, and the conduct of
      > SIGs and the AMM has become more structured. As a result, the system of
      > categorising reviews is no longer necessary and only adds complexity to
      > the process.
      > Note: The APNIC policy development process is also under current
      > review. It is intended that this proposed document editorial policy
      > would complement the policy development process.
      > 3 Other RIRs
      > ----------------
      > At ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE NCC, the editorial process is contained
      > within the overall policy development process (for full details, refer
      > to the "Proposal for an amended APNIC open policy process").
      > Due to the range and diversity of languages in the APNIC region, it is
      > proposed to ensure consistent policy documentation by requiring the
      > Secretariat to coordinate an editorial process which implements the
      > decisions of the policy development process.
      > 4 Proposal
      > ----------------
      > It is proposed to revise the current document, APNIC-083 "APNIC
      > Document review policies and procedures" as follows:
      >         * The revised policy should include formal recognition
      >           of the policy development process, in which the SIGs
      >           and the AMM form consensus-based policies and other decisions.
      >         * The provisions relating to the categories of review should be
      >           removed.
      >         * The document should describe a simple editorial procedure for
      >           implementing the consensus decisions that arise from the policy
      >           development process.
      >         * Under the proposed editorial procedure, the document which
      >           implements a consensus decision should require only a single
      >           call for public review.
      >         * The existing provision which allows for requests for further
      >           reviews of a document should be retained, but only on the basis
      >           that the document does not properly reflect the consensus from
      >           the relevant meeting.
      >         * There should also be a provision to allow objections to the
      >           implementation of the document on the ground that the policy is
      >           fundamentally flawed and may do harm to the global Internet.
      >           Objections of this nature should be directed to the Executive
      >           Council who would have the power to suspend implementation of the
      >           document.
      >         * If a document is required to implement an emergency decision made
      >           by the Executive Council between Member Meetings, that document
      >           must be reviewed at the next Open Policy Meeting.
      > 5 Implementation
      > ----------------
      > It is proposed to seek consensus on this proposal at APNIC 16. If
      > consensus is reached, it is proposed to implement this policy as soon
      > as possible, so that the editorial process may be applied to any other
      > consensus items arising from that meeting.
      > ----------------end----------------
      > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-policy mailing list
      > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      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