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

  • To: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy]Revised APNIC Policy Process - Proposal
  • From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:02:04 +1000 (EST)
  • Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <3EE7DD2B.CA4A2ACC@ix.netcom.com>
  • 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
    • 
      >   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?
      
      In the document "consensus" is defined in section 4.2 as:
      
      > > Consensus is defined as 'general agreement' as observed by the chair of
      > > the meeting.
      
      Consensus is general agreement of the group and is not measured by 
      a majority vote. 
      
      Do you think this needs more words in the document?
      
      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
      > 
      > 
      > *              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
      >