Re: [sig-policy]Revised APNIC Policy Process - Proposal
> 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(²), where multiple
> > sessions run in parallel over several days, and attendees convene in
> > groups according to topics of special interest(³).
> >
> > 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
> >
> > (²) 15th APNIC Open Policy Meeting:
> > http://www.apnic.net/meetings/15/schedule/index.html
> >
> > (³) 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
>