Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-126-v001: PDP Update" has been sent to the Policy SIG
for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 46 in
Noumea, New Caledonia on Thursday, 13 September 2018.
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:
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-126
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/prop-126-v001.txt
prop-126-v001: PDP Update
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
With its requirement of face-to-face participation at the OPM, the current PDP
might – at least partially – be the cause of the low levels of community participation
in the process by using the policy mailing list.
This proposal would allow an increased participation, by considering also the comments
in the list for the consensus determination. So, consensus would be determined balancing
the mailing list and the forum, and would therefore increase community participation.
Further, policy proposals are meant for the community as a whole, and not only APNIC
members, so this proposal suggest removing the actual “double” consensus required in
both groups.
Moreover, requiring 4 weeks in advance to the OPM, seems unnecessary as the consensus
determination can be done in two stages (SIG meeting and list), so the proposal looks
for just 1 week in advance to the SIG responsible for that proposal.
Finally, it completes the PDP by adding a simple mechanism for solving disagreements
during an appeals phase and an improved definition of ‘consensus’.
To allow that consensus is determined also looking at the opinions of community
members that are not able to travel to the meetings, adjust the time required
before the relevant SIG to submit the proposals, not requiring “double” consensus
with the APNIC members and facilitating a simple method for appeals.
The PDP is different in the different RIRs. This proposal is similar to the RIPE PDP,
possibly the region with the broadest participation in its policy proposal discussions,
although there are certain differences such as the mandatory use of the mailing list
and the meeting, which is more similar to the PDP at ARIN (another region with broad
community participation). LACNIC has recently adopted a similar policy proposal with
the same aims.
PDP documnet
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-development/development-process/#4
A policy proposal must go through the following chronological steps in order to be
adopted by APNIC.
Actual:
Step 1
Discussion before the OPM
A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to the SIG Chair
four weeks before the start of the OPM. The proposal must be in text which clearly
expresses the proposal, with explicit mention of any changes being proposed to existing
policies and the reasons for those changes. The APNIC Secretariat will recommend a
preferred proposal format. If the four-week deadline is not met, proposals may still
be submitted and presented for discussion at the meeting; however, no decision may
be made by the meeting regarding the proposal. The proposal will need to be resubmitted
in time for the following meeting if the author wishes to pursue the proposal.
Proposed:
Step 1
Discussion before the OPM
A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to the SIG Chair
one week before the start of the OPM. The proposal must be in text which clearly expresses
the proposal, with explicit mention of any changes being proposed to existing policies and
the reasons for those changes. The APNIC Secretariat will recommend a preferred proposal
format. If the four-week deadline is not met, proposals may still be submitted and presented
for discussion at the meeting; however, no decision may be made by the meeting regarding the
proposal. The proposal will need to be resubmitted in time for the following meeting if the
author wishes to pursue the proposal.
Actual:
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.
Proposed:
Step 2
Consensus at the OPM
Consensus is defined as “general agreement” as observed by the Chairs. Consensus is determined in
both, the SIG session and the SIG mailing list. If there is no consensus on a proposal, the SIG
(either on the mailing list or at a future OPM) will discuss whether to amend the proposal or to
withdraw it.
Actual:
Step 3
Discussion after the OPM
Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AMM will be circulated on the appropriate
SIG mailing list for a period. This is known as the “comment period”. The duration of the “comment
period” will be not shorter than four weeks and not 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 SIG Chair.
Proposed:
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. This is known as the “comment period”. The duration of the “comment period” will
be not shorter than four weeks and not 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 SIG Chair.
Step 4
No change.
Actual:
Step 5
Endorsement from the EC
The EC, in their capacity as representatives of the membership, will be asked to endorse the consensus
proposals arising from the OPM and the SIG mailing lists for implementation at the next EC meeting. In
reviewing the proposals for implementation, the EC may refer proposals back to the SIG for further
discussion with clearly stated reasons. As per the APNIC By-laws, the EC may, at its discretion, refer
the endorsement to a formal vote of adoption by the APNIC members.
Proposed:
Step 5
Endorsement from the EC
The EC, in their capacity as representatives of the membership, will be asked to endorse the consensus
proposals arising from the OPM and the SIG mailing lists for implementation at the next EC meeting. In
reviewing the proposals for implementation, the EC may refer proposals back to the SIG for further
discussion with clearly stated reasons. As per the APNIC By-laws, the EC may, at its discretion, refer
the endorsement to a formal vote of adoption by the APNIC members.
Appeals process
In case of disagreement during the process, any member of the community must initially bring the matter
to the mailing list for consideration by the Chairs.
Alternately, if any member considers that the Chairs have violated the process or erred in their judgement,
they may appeal their decision through the EC, which must decide the matter within a period of four weeks.
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objectives above indicated and making sure that there is no
discrimination with community members that aren’t able to travel.
Disadvantages:
None foreseen.
None.
http://www.lacnic.net/679/2/lacnic/policy-development-process
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642
Sumon, Ching-Heng and Bertrand
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs