[sig-policy] New version: prop-108-v002: Suggested changes to the APNIC

  • To: <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] New version: prop-108-v002: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process
  • From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
  • Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:38:43 +0800
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.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/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Thread-topic: New version: prop-108-v002: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613
    • #I'm sending this e-mail instead of Chair, Andy Linton.

      Dear SIG members

      A new version of the proposal "prop-108: Suggested changes to the
      APNIC Policy Development Process" has been sent to the Policy SIG for
      review.

      Information about earlier versions is available from:


      You are encouraged you to express your views on the proposal:

      - Do you support or oppose 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?

      Regards,

      Andy and 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 one part of
      the
      documentation that are inconsistent or do not match with the reality
      of how the process is implemented.  It also describes the problem and
      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 one of these issues.

      The relevant steps in the PDP [APNICPDP-1] to be addressed in this 
      proposal are presented below for reference purposes:


        - 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".


      .  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 a change which seeks to resolve the problem
      outlined above.


      .  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 3 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 of which
      will not be shorter than four weeks but no longer than eight weeks.  The
      decision to extend more than four weeks, including the duration of
        
      the extension will be determined 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:

         None at present


      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

      [PSIG35-1] Yamanishi, M., “APNIC35 Policy-SIG Informational: Questions
      for Clarification in the APNIC PDP”, APNIC 35, Singapore, 28 February
      2013.  Accessed from
      -points-in-pdp-2013027_1361972669.pdf