Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy-chair] prop-108 final 8 week comment period
There only a few days left of the 8-week comment period.
Remember the deadline for comments: 24:00 (UTC+10) Wednesday, 6 November 2013
Regards,
Andy and Masato
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
> I'd like to remind you that we're half way through the 8-week comment period.
>
> Remember the deadline for comments: 24:00 (UTC+10) Wednesday, 6 November 2013
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
>> 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 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