The text below is a proposal to modify the current APNIC document
review policy to create a simple editorial process that would be used
to implement consensus decisions reached through the APNIC policy
This proposal should be read together with the Revised APNIC Policy
Process Proposal, which was posted to this list earlier today.
Comments and feedback are now sought on both proposals and should be
made on this list.
It is proposed to modify the current document to take full account of
the effect of consensus decisions reached through the APNIC policy
development process and to provide a separate, simple editorial process.
An earlier version of this proposal was discussed at APNIC 15. The
nature of the discussions held at that meeting have been taken into
account in preparing this current version.
2 Background and problem
APNIC's policies are developed by the membership and the broader
Internet community through a bottom-up process of consultation and
APNIC holds two face-to-face APNIC Open Policy Meetings each year.
Anyone may attend the meetings and participate in discussions and
decision making. The Open Policy Meetings comprise many different
elements, but core to the policy development process are the Special
Interest Groups (SIGs) and the APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). At the SIG
meetings, and throughout the year on the associated mailing lists,
policy is created and refined through discussion and consensus-based
decision making. Participants at the Member Meeting are asked to
endorse the policy outcomes of the SIGs.
However, the current document review policy was originally developed
when the APNIC policy development process was less well defined,
particularly in relation to the role of the SIGs. The current policy
document combines the decision making process and the editorial
process. It focuses on a process of "calls for comment" but does not
adequately address the status of decisions which have emerged from the
SIG process and reached consensus at the AMMs.
The current document review policy also describes a set of categories
for review, which determine the number and length of calls for
comments. However, the role of the SIGs has evolved, and the conduct of
SIGs and the AMM has become more structured. As a result, the system of
categorising reviews is no longer necessary and only adds complexity to
Note: The APNIC policy development process is also under current
review. It is intended that this proposed document editorial policy
would complement the policy development process.
3 Other RIRs
At ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE NCC, the editorial process is contained
within the overall policy development process (for full details, refer
to the "Proposal for an amended APNIC open policy process").
Due to the range and diversity of languages in the APNIC region, it is
proposed to ensure consistent policy documentation by requiring the
Secretariat to coordinate an editorial process which implements the
decisions of the policy development process.
It is proposed to revise the current document, APNIC-083 "APNIC
Document review policies and procedures" as follows:
* The revised policy should include formal recognition
of the policy development process, in which the SIGs
and the AMM form consensus-based policies and other decisions.
* The provisions relating to the categories of review should be
* The document should describe a simple editorial procedure for
implementing the consensus decisions that arise from the policy
* Under the proposed editorial procedure, the document which
implements a consensus decision should require only a single
call for public review.
* The existing provision which allows for requests for further
reviews of a document should be retained, but only on the basis
that the document does not properly reflect the consensus from
the relevant meeting.
* There should also be a provision to allow objections to the
implementation of the document on the ground that the policy is
fundamentally flawed and may do harm to the global Internet.
Objections of this nature should be directed to the Executive
Council who would have the power to suspend implementation of the
* If a document is required to implement an emergency decision made
by the Executive Council between Member Meetings, that document
must be reviewed at the next Open Policy Meeting.
It is proposed to seek consensus on this proposal at APNIC 16. If
consensus is reached, it is proposed to implement this policy as soon
as possible, so that the editorial process may be applied to any other
consensus items arising from that meeting.