Re: [sig-policy] Post Prop-103 (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)
This seems to me like an excellent concept.
First of all, starting with a Problem Statement rather than a Policy
Solution seems remarkably like the conventional approach to Business
Systems Analysis where you start out with User Requirements and only
later work on the solutions. I have both in former times received, and
in latter days dished out, admonishments to "stop solutioneering" at the
start-up phase of a project.
Going back through this list would bring up several examples where
contributors have asked policy proponents "yes, but what problem would
this solve?", so your idea would avoid a great deal of this unproductive
back-and-forth.
Secondly, requiring the input of the APNIC Secretariat would also
prevent much wasted effort.
If they were to answer "well, of course we could do that within our
existing policy framework *if only someone asked*", well, that's sorted
then, no need for us to get all in a lather about it.
If on the other hand they say "No, we can't do that, it'd be against
Policy Number <so and so>", then we have a clear and demonstrated need
to either persuade the proposer that their Statement is not a Problem
["No, that's a feature, not a bug!" ;-)], or to change our Policy to
address what we agree is a Problem. If there are arguments, at least we
all understand what we're arguing about, instead of either agreeing
violently or addressing entirely different issues believing them to be
the same.
So, I definitely support this.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012 12:54 p.m.
To: sig-policy at apnic dot net SIG List
Subject: [sig-policy] Post Prop-103
Hi Everyone,
In the wake of APNIC34, I'd like to ensure that the good work we did
on prop-103 continues.
In order to do that, I'd like to present the mailing list with a
problem statement and then a possible solution.
Please feel free to debate either.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
The current PDP forces authors to present a fully formed *solution* to
a problem.
It then asks other members of the community to endorse this solution
when they have had little or no involvement in how it was developed.
What we then see is a lack of consensus on a number of proposals, as
well as multiple proposals attempting to solve a similar problem.
This approach uses time and resources which could be better spent in
other ways.
I would like some feedback on whether other members perceive this to
be a problem, and if so what solutions might be sought to solve it.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
With simple changes made to the PDP, the membership could be
encouraged to bring discuss issues and possible solutions rather than
presenting a finished piece of work. As such, policy proposals will be
more representative of the views of the whole membership and consensus
should be much easier to achieve.
My suggested changes to the PDP are as follows:
. A Problem Statement is posted to the Policy-SIG list outlining a
problem or issue with the current APNIC policies. This need be no
more than the first paragraph of this email. It is purely a place to
start discussion.
. The proposer leads conversation on the Policy-SIG list to develop
possible solutions to this Problem Statement. I have referenced the
proposer here and given them a responsibility because I want the
expectation to be that they are involved in the discussion and open to
feedback from the community. It would be too easy to have a proposer
post a problem statement followed by a solution without any
discussion. We would be in the same situation we are today.
. At this stage the APNIC Secretariat can comment if they consider
that the Problem Statement can be covered within current policies. As
we have seen recently, it is possible that some problems can be solved
within the existing policies purely through discussion with the
secretariat. Rather than being excluded from these discussions, the
APNIC Secretariat should feel empowered to offer feedback on how the
problem could be solved within the existing policy framework.
. When the proposer feels that they have a solution to their Problem
Statement, they draft a policy and submit it in a similar fashion as
occurs currently within the PDP. There is no time limit on how short
or how long this might take. I do not want to preclude that in
serious situations this may all happen on a single day. It may take
months to get a solution which people feel they can get consensus on.
The important thing is that when you go infront of the policy-sig at a
meeting, you should know what the community feels about your proposal.
Comments welcome^Hessential. Remember this is only a suggested
solution, there may be others. Lets hear them.
Regards,
Dean
* 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
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
the sender immediately.