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 21:27:47 -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.4.44.0306121050480.4647-100000@durian.apnic.net>
  • Sender: sig-policy-admin@lists.apnic.net
    • 
      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(), 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
      > >
      
      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