Re: [sig-policy] prop-108-v001: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy De
What is a purpose of consensus call at the AMM?
Who can decide consensus about policy sig report at AMM?
Best regards,
---
TACHIBANA toshio
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
> Dear SIG members
>
> The proposal "prop-108-v001: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy
> Development Process" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It
> will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 36 in Xi'an, China, on
> Thursday, 29 August 2013.
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
> tell the community about your situation.
> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
> effective?
>
>
> Information about this policy proposals is available from:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/108
>
> Andy, Masato
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> prop-108-v001: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Proposers: Dean Pemberton <dean at internetnz dot net dot nz>
> Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
>
>
> 1. Introduction
> ----------------
>
> At APNIC 35 in Singapore, Policy-SIG co-chair Masato Yamanishi delivered
> a presentation [PSIG35-1] outlining a number of inconsistencies or areas
> of sub-optimisation within the documentation governing the current APNIC
> Policy Development Process. This policy proposal outlines the exact
> parts of the documentation that are inconsistent or do not match with
> the reality of how the process is implemented. It also describes the
> problems that each of these inconsistencies cause. It seeks to offer
> ways to change the required documentation to optimise the APNIC PDP in
> these areas in collaboration with the community.
>
>
> 2. Problem Statement
> ---------------------
>
> Yamanishi-san highlighted a number of inconsistencies in his
> presentation. This proposal seeks to address three of these, which are
> related to the process of the consensus decisions, as they are a core
> part of the Policy Development Process (PDP).
>
> The relevant steps in the PDP [APNICPDP-1] to be addressed in this
> proposal are presented below for reference purposes:
>
> - Step 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 Member 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.
>
> - Step 3
> Discussion after the OPM Proposals that have reached consensus at
> the OPM will be circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing list for a
> period of eight weeks. This is known as the "comment period".
>
>
> A) Timing Requirements for the Policy-SIG chairs to announce consensus
> in the Open Policy Meeting (OPM)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Consensus must be
> reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting
> for the process to continue.”
>
> While neither the PDP document nor the SIG Guidelines specify the
> timing of consensus, current practice is for the chairs to decide if
> consensus has been reached immediately after calling for consensus
> from the floor. This does not allow enough time for the chairs to
> make their consensus decision based on the consideration of various
> factors raised from the floor as well as discussion among themselves.
>
> In recent meetings there have been situations where consensus has
> been particularly hard to gauge. This may be due to a smaller number
> of strongly held opinions, or an even split between supporters and
> objectors. In these cases it may assist the Policy-SIG chairs in
> returning an appropriate decision if more time was afforded them for
> internal discussion. This is particularly relevant where there might
> be disagreement between the Chairs.
>
>
> B) Requiring for consensus to be called and demonstrated at the AMM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As above Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Consensus
> must be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member
> Meeting for the process to continue.”
>
> In practice today this is followed exactly. At the OPM a policy
> proposal is required to gain consensus, and then the same consensus
> is required to be shown at the AMM on the next day. While this may
> not be considered a real problem, it can not be argued that it is an
> effective use of time and resources.
>
> This process of calling for consensus once in the OPM and again at
> the AMM has its history in the days when different SIGs, working in
> isolation, may have produced conflicting policies at same meeting.
> Calling for consensus at the AMM was a way for these conflicts to
> come to light and give the community a final chance to support one
> but not both of the policies proposed by the different SIGs.
>
> At APNIC today the Policy-SIG is only SIG that has a mandate to
> propose policy changes. As such the process of calling for consensus
> at the OPM as well as the AMM is redundant. If members have
> objections, they can are free to participate in the OPM which is held
> the day before the AMM in the same venue.
>
>
> C) The length of the required comment period for successful policy
> proposals after the AMM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As above Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Proposals
> that have reached consensus at the OPM will be circulated on the
> appropriate SIG mailing list for a period of eight weeks. This is
> known as the "comment period".
>
> In practice, once a proposal has been through discussion on the
> mailing list, been presented an OPM for further discussion, and
> successfully demonstrated consensus of the community, there are
> little or no comments generated within the eight week subsequent
> comment period. Most concerns are raised within two weeks after the
> call for final comments. It should also be noted that there has not
> been a case where a new opinion raised more than four weeks after the
> call for final comments. Chairs should be able to judge whether there
> are substantial concerns for the consensus within a shorter period.
>
> Eight weeks is a significant amount of time to allow for additional
> comments after a policy proposal has gained consensus at the OPM. It
> is in fact longer than the entire discussion period under which the
> proposal was presented.
>
> At present all the 8 week comment period serves to do is
> significantly delay the implementation of policy which been
> demonstrated to have the consensus of the community.
>
>
> 3. Objective of Policy Change
> ---------------------------
>
> To optimise and/or disambiguate procedures carried out under the current
> APNIC PDP.
>
>
> 4. Proposed Policy Solution
> ---------------------------
>
> This section will propose changes which seek to resolve the problems
> outlined above.
>
>
> A) Timing Requirements for the Policy-SIG chairs to announce consensus
> in the Open Policy Meeting (OPM)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In order to ensure that the SIG chairs have time to discuss any
> issues relevant to considering consensus for or against a proposal,
> the first paragraph of Step 2 of the PDP should be replaced with:
>
> --------[APNICPDP-1]--------
>
> Step 2. Consensus at the OPM
>
> Consensus is defined as "general agreement" as observed by the Chair
> of the meeting. The Chair, at their sole discretion, may wish to
> confer with their Co-Chairs before judging consensus. This
> discussion may occur in private and the final determination of
> consensus should be given by the Chair before the end of the OPM.
>
> The Chair should ensure that it is made clear if consensus is
> currently being gauged on part of a proposal, or the proposal in its
> entirety. This will ensure that OPM participants are clear in their
> responses.
>
> --------[APNICPDP-1]--------
>
>
> B) Requiring for consensus to be called and demonstrated at the AMM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In order to relax the requirement for some policies to gain consensus
> at both the OPM and the Member Meeting, the second paragraph of Step
> 2 of the PDP should be replaced with:
>
> --------[APNICPDP-1]--------
>
> Consensus must be reached at the SIG session. The SIG Chair may, at
> their sole discretion, seek an additional call for consensus at the
> Member Meeting for the process to continue. If the call for consensus
> on a proposal at either of these forums is not successful, the SIG
> (either on the mailing list or at a future OPM) will discuss whether
> to amend the proposal or to withdraw it.
>
> --------[APNICPDP-1]--------
>
>
> C) The length of the required comment period for successful policy
> proposals after the AMM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In order to allow for the shortening of this period, Step 2 of the
> PDP should be replaced with:
>
> --------[APNICPDP-1]--------
>
> Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM will be circulated
> on the appropriate SIG mailing list for a period, the duration will
> not be shorter than two weeks but may be extended on a case-by-case
> basis at the sole discretion of the Chair. This is known as the
> "comment period".
>
> --------[APNICPDP-1]--------
>
>
> 5. Pros/Cons
> -------------
>
> Advantages:
>
> The changes outlined above will ensure that the APNIC PDP is kept
> inline with best current practice of the operation of the SIGs
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> There is a possibility that by removing a requirement for consensus
> at the AMM that APNIC members not present at the OPM may not feel
> that they have endorsed a proposal. Given that the OPM occurs the
> day before the AMM in the same location, it would not be unreasonable
> to assume that any interested party would have already provided
> feedback during the OPM however.
>
>
> 6. Impact on APNIC
> -------------------
>
> These changes will ensure that the development of policy within APNIC
> continues to occur in a standardised, consistent framework.
>
>
> 7. References
> ------------------
>
> [APNICPDP-1] APNIC policy development process - 19 February 2004
> Accessed from http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/policy-development.txt
>
> [PSIG35-1] Yamanishi, M., “APNIC35 Policy-SIG Informational: Questions
> for Clarification in the APNIC PDP”, APNIC 35, Singapore, 28 February
> 2013. Accessed from
> http://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/58992/ambiguouts
> -points-in-pdp-2013027_1361972669.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