Dear colleagues
Version 2 of prop-126: PDP Update, did not reach consensus at the APNIC
46 Open Policy Meeting.
The Policy SIG Chairs returned the proposal to the author for further
discussion with the community and invited the author to submit an
amended version based on the community's feedback.
Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
links to previous versions are available at:
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-126/
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-126-v002: PDP Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
[email protected]
1. Problem Statement
--------------------
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’.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
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.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
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.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
PDP documnet
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-development/development-process/#4
4. Proposal process
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 one-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.
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.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
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.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
http://www.lacnic.net/679/2/lacnic/policy-development-process
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642
Cordialement,
_______________________________
Bertrand Cherrier
Administration Systèmes - R&D
Micro Logic Systems
[email protected]
https://www.mls.nc
Tél : +687 24 99 24
VoIP : 65 24 99 24
SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min)
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
