APNIC Home APNIC Home
Info & FAQ |  Resource services |  Training |  Meetings |  Membership |  Documents |  Whois & Search |  Internet community

You're here:  Home  Mailing Lists sig-policy 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[sig-policy] Fwd: [Sig-policy-chair] prop-108 final 8 week comment period



Dear colleagues

Version 2 of prop-108 Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development
Process, reached consensus at the  APNIC 36 Policy SIG and later at the
APNIC Member Meeting.

This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
for the final 8-week comment period.

At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments
made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 36 still holds.

If consensus holds, the Chairs of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive
Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.

   - Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
   - Deadline for comments:  24:00 (UTC+10) Wednesday, 6 November 2013



Proposal details
----------------

A proposal to optimize and/or disambiguate procedures carried out under
the current APNIC PDP.

Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
links to the APNIC 36 meeting archive, are available at:

         http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-108

Regards

Andy and Masato





-----------------------------------------------------------------------

prop-108-v002: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposers:     Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz>
               Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.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 âProposals
   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 and the AMM 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
Accessed from http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/policy-development.txt

[PSIG35-1] Yamanishi, M., âAPNIC35 Policy-SIG Informational: Questions
for Clarification in the APNIC PDPâ, 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