Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Good Morning,
Below is a draft problem statement which looks to resolve a number of process inconsistencies highlighted by Yamanishi-san's presentation at APNIC35. This Problem Statement purposely does not propose a solution to any of the 3 problems highlighed within. It is the authors' intent that this Problem Statement should be first endorsed by the community and then solutions worked on collaboratively within this group.
Please comment on both the Problem Statement as it exists as well as any solutions you may have to address the issues contained.
Kind Regards, Dean Pemberton
---------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-10x-v001: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-authors: Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp Dean Pemberton dean@internetnz.net.nz
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 the exact parts of the documentation that are inconsistent or do not match with the reality of how the process is implemented. It also describes the problems that each of these inconsistencies cause. It 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 three of these, which are related to the process of the consensus decisions, as they are a core part of the Policy Development Process (PDP).
The relevant steps in the PDP to be addressed in this proposal are presented below for reference purposes:
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.
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".
A) Timing Requirements for the Policy-SIG chairs to announce consensus in the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) ---------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Consensus must be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting for the process to continue.”
While neither the PDP document nor the SIG Guidelines specify the timing of consensus, current practice is for the chairs to decide if consensus has been reached immediately after calling for consensus from the floor. This does not allow enough time for the chairs to make their consensus decision based on the consideration of various factors raised from the floor as well as discussion among themselves.
In recent meetings there have been situations where consensus has been particularly hard to gauge. This may be due to a smaller number of strongly held opinions, or an even split between supporters and objectors. In these cases it may assist the Policy-SIG chairs in returning an appropriate decision if more time was afforded them for internal discussion. This is particularly relevant where there might be disagreement between the Chairs.
B) Requiring for consensus to be called and demonstrated at the AMM ---------------------------------------------------------------
As above Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Consensus must be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting for the process to continue.”
In practice today this is followed exactly. At the OPM a policy proposal is required to gain consensus, and then the same consensus is required to be shown at the AMM on the next day. While this may not be considered a real problem, it can not be argued that it is an effective use of time and resources.
This process of calling for consensus once in the OPM and again at the AMM has its history in the days when different SIGs, working in isolation, may have produced conflicting policies at same meeting. Calling for consensus at the AMM was a way for these conflicts to come to light and give the community a final chance to support one but not both of the policies proposed by the different SIGs.
At APNIC today the Policy-SIG is only SIG that has a mandate to propose policy changes. As such the process of calling for consensus at the OPM as well as the AMM is redundant. If members have objections, they can are free to participate in the OPM which is held the day before the AMM in the same venue.
C) The length of the required comment period for successful policy proposals after the AMM ---------------------------------------------------------------
As above Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “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".
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 -----------
To be developed in consultation with the community via the Policy-SIG mailing list.
5. Pros/Cons -------------
Advantages: To be developed in consultation with the community via the Policy-SIG mailing list.
Disadvantages: To be developed in consultation with the community via the Policy-SIG mailing list.
6. Impact on APNIC ---------------------------
To be developed in consultation with the community via the Policy-SIG mailing list.
7. References ------------------
[PSIG35-1] Yamanishi, M., “APNIC35 Policy-SIG Informational: Questions for Clarification in the APNIC PDP”, APNIC 35, Singapore, 28 February 2013. Accessed from http://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/58992/ambiguouts-poi...
Dean,
I'm Toshio Tachibana, a chair of policy development forum in Japan.
Izumi-san inform about APNIC PDP related discussion on lastest policy development forum event in Japan.
Major feedbacks from the JP community on Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process as follows.
+ Several positive feedbacks about shortening the comment period on the mailing list after the meeting consensus. It will also help in faciliating Policy Development Process in Japan, as it clarifies the decision of the APNIC forum at early stage when discussing the proposal in Japan.
+ A mild question about the necessity to remove AMM consensus. AMM serves as an endorsement from APNIC members and serves a different purpose from consensus at Policy SIG, so not quite sure AMM consensus process should be removed from the process without considering this point.
+ It is ambiguous whether consensus is taken in each step and independent process or, the all steps altogether is considered consensus. It will effect in considering the process, so should first clearly define this first.
I hope these comments and opinions would help in the discussions.
Best regards, Toshio Tachibana
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Dean Pemberton dean@internetnz.net.nz wrote:
Good Morning,
Below is a draft problem statement which looks to resolve a number of process inconsistencies highlighted by Yamanishi-san's presentation at APNIC35. This Problem Statement purposely does not propose a solution to any of the 3 problems highlighed within. It is the authors' intent that this Problem Statement should be first endorsed by the community and then solutions worked on collaboratively within this group.
Please comment on both the Problem Statement as it exists as well as any solutions you may have to address the issues contained.
Kind Regards, Dean Pemberton
prop-10x-v001: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process
Co-authors: Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp Dean Pemberton dean@internetnz.net.nz
- 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 the exact parts of the documentation that are inconsistent or do not match with the reality of how the process is implemented. It also describes the problems that each of these inconsistencies cause. It seeks to offer ways to change the required documentation to optimise the APNIC PDP in these areas in collaboration with the community.
- Problem Statement
Yamanishi-san highlighted a number of inconsistencies in his presentation. This proposal seeks to address three of these, which are related to the process of the consensus decisions, as they are a core part of the Policy Development Process (PDP).
The relevant steps in the PDP to be addressed in this proposal are presented below for reference purposes:
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.
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".
A) Timing Requirements for the Policy-SIG chairs to announce consensus in the Open Policy Meeting (OPM)
Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Consensus must be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting for the process to continue.”
While neither the PDP document nor the SIG Guidelines specify the timing of consensus, current practice is for the chairs to decide if consensus has been reached immediately after calling for consensus from the floor. This does not allow enough time for the chairs to make their consensus decision based on the consideration of various factors raised from the floor as well as discussion among themselves.
In recent meetings there have been situations where consensus has been particularly hard to gauge. This may be due to a smaller number of strongly held opinions, or an even split between supporters and objectors. In these cases it may assist the Policy-SIG chairs in returning an appropriate decision if more time was afforded them for internal discussion. This is particularly relevant where there might be disagreement between the Chairs.
B) Requiring for consensus to be called and demonstrated at the AMM
As above Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Consensus must be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting for the process to continue.”
In practice today this is followed exactly. At the OPM a policy proposal is required to gain consensus, and then the same consensus is required to be shown at the AMM on the next day. While this may not be considered a real problem, it can not be argued that it is an effective use of time and resources.
This process of calling for consensus once in the OPM and again at the AMM has its history in the days when different SIGs, working in isolation, may have produced conflicting policies at same meeting. Calling for consensus at the AMM was a way for these conflicts to come to light and give the community a final chance to support one but not both of the policies proposed by the different SIGs.
At APNIC today the Policy-SIG is only SIG that has a mandate to propose policy changes. As such the process of calling for consensus at the OPM as well as the AMM is redundant. If members have objections, they can are free to participate in the OPM which is held the day before the AMM in the same venue.
C) The length of the required comment period for successful policy proposals after the AMM
As above Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “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".
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.
- Objective of Policy Change
To optimise and/or disambiguate procedures carried out under the current APNIC PDP.
- Proposed Policy Solution
To be developed in consultation with the community via the Policy-SIG mailing list.
- Pros/Cons
Advantages: To be developed in consultation with the community via the Policy-SIG mailing list.
Disadvantages: To be developed in consultation with the community via the Policy-SIG mailing list.
- Impact on APNIC
To be developed in consultation with the community via the Policy-SIG mailing list.
- References
[PSIG35-1] Yamanishi, M., “APNIC35 Policy-SIG Informational: Questions for Clarification in the APNIC PDP”, APNIC 35, Singapore, 28 February 2013. Accessed from http://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/58992/ambiguouts-poi...
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Activity Summary
- 3726 days inactive
- 3726 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 2 participants
- 1 comments