Re: [sig-policy]Revised APNIC Policy Process - Proposal
Anne Lord wrote:
> hi Jeff,
>
> > 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.
Ok. This seems to me anyway to be a very poor definition when
dealing with such broadly imortpant areas of potential policy.
>
>
> Do you think this needs more words in the document?
I sure do. Consensus claimed and not measured is not
a valid consensus at all. In the IETF for instance a "hum"
was given or not given to informally indicate a consensus
or lack there of. However that was some years ago
Today a much greater imapact is felt and levied when
a policy in the IT world is set or otherwise determined.
Hence something much more percise and acknowledgable
is needed to determine "Consensus".
>
>
> 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
> >
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