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

  • To: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] Fwd: [Sig-policy-chair] prop-108 final 8 week comment period
  • From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
  • Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:36:49 +1200
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:dkim-signature:x-google-dkim-signature:x-gm-message-state: x-received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0Z0VL4SxHb8yYjrDcOxaRmNk96hC3m/XfM/1rInGW88=; b=KCCSoToNpqY8HrsloEBTZespG6fLsQFTpMjq/BuXHKIYmAU+Mkzc21ruICGebEqcWUFMoE/K/HIYk 0tD+Wcm7DalmwwpgrbcW5K9TLbCt7QhfuOcIFjAORPqRHT0+Wlxwnn8il3Wk9gjnWqZaWGJxcWlWF1 YdxxmF16flY8JLl8=
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lpnz.org; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0Z0VL4SxHb8yYjrDcOxaRmNk96hC3m/XfM/1rInGW88=; b=wGeBet7mgWeOsJ4CBrzNz/amVOf1yhxCHJVODaggglGx7e+09tDxyhTLhwXrAnJn92 SqV45csVCx3t6wCTtnQh1/vqIF+CJ7DFSrpoc/pTjnLhDEa2cl+qNc43ToWavuFOyG1e 1kIza4Y5hmIDwwjqOTD4zqJa1O5MZXr7vbgIQ=
  • In-reply-to: <CE54CB2A.337E6%adam at 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>
  • References: <CE54CB2A.337E6%adam@apnic.net>
    • 
      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 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 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