Re: [sig-policy]Revised APNIC Policy Process - Proposal
Thank you Anne for passing this along. I have only one question
and/or concern. That being, how is "Consensus" determined or
otherwise factually delineated? Where, or is the definition of
"Consensus" defined for Apnic's purposes?
Anne Lord wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> The text below is a revised proposal for developing policy
> in the APNIC region. It is based upon input received from
> the last APNIC meeting.
> This proposal should be read together with a companion
> proposal which will be postly to this shortly, which describes
> an amended APNIC document editorial policy.
> Comments and feedback are now sought on both proposals and
> should be made on this list.
> warm regards,
> A revised proposal for an amended APNIC open policy process
> Proposed by: Anne Lord, Randy Bush
> Version: draft 2.0
> Date: 10 June 2003
> 1. Summary
> This document proposes a modified process for developing policies for
> managing Internet resources in the Asia Pacific region.
> This proposal is based upon input and discussion at the APNIC Open Policy
> meeting at APNIC15 in Taipei, February 27, 2003 and on the
> sig-policy at apnic dot net mailing list. It is to be used as a basis for
> continued discussion on the mailing list.
> Note that a revised editorial process is being proposed to implement
> consensus policy decisions and will be circulated on the
> sig-policy at apnic dot net mailing list. This was presented in draft at APNIC15
> and is archived at:
> 2. Background and problem
> APNIC operates in a self-regulatory environment where the policies for
> managing Internet resources in the Asia Pacific region are created through
> open, consensus based processes.
> The processes for creating policy are evolving. APNIC has held open and
> public meetings since 1995(1). The early meetings were much simpler in
> structure and content than the meetings held today(²), where multiple
> sessions run in parallel over several days, and attendees convene in
> groups according to topics of special interest(³).
> The current processes for creating policy are documented at:
> and were presented at APNIC15 for review and discussion(4).
> While APNIC policy processes are open to all interested parties, there has
> been feedback to suggest that there is still insufficient opportunity for
> review and input from all constituencies in the policy development
> process. Specific suggestions for improvement were made at the Address
> Policy SIG at APNIC15 in a presentation 'APNIC policy process - provoking
> 3. Other Regions
> In the other RIR regions, reviews of the policy development processes have
> recently taken place with discussions still ongoing. Please refer to the
> individual RIR websites for details:
> * http://www.arin.net
> * http://www.lacnic.net
> * http://www.ripe.net
> 3.1. RIPE
> The processes for developing policy within the RIPE region are relatively
> Proposals are normally sent to the relevant working group mailing list,
> however this is not a formal requirement in order for consideration within
> a RIPE meeting. A presentation and discussion may then take place at the
> working group session during the RIPE meeting. A measure of consensus to
> proceed with the proposal is taken at that meeting. The working group is
> empowered to make decisions and it reports its outcomes to the plenary
> session of the RIPE meeting.
> A summary of the outcome of discussions at the working group meeting is
> sent to the working group mailing list, usually with a deadline for
> comment. If the comment period expires and there are no major objections,
> the proposal will be implemented.
> 3.2. ARIN
> Full details of the ARIN policy process are described at:
> * http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html
> Key elements of the process include:
> * Formal period of 4 weeks for proposals to be circulated on a mailing
> list, prior to presentation at an ARIN meeting;
> * Formal period of 10 days after a meeting for gathering input on
> decisions from the meeting;
> * Advisory Council of 15 volunteer individuals whose responsibility it is
> to judge whether consensus has been reached on a particular proposal;
> * Board of Trustees who ratify any proposed policies before they can be
> accepted and implemented.
> 3.3. LACNIC
> The process for developing policies for managing address space in the
> LACNIC region is initiated by the identification of a need for a new or
> revised policy, followed by the formation of a small working group (of no
> more than 7 volunteers) who work on particular policy proposals.
> Proposals are circulated on mailing lists and are presented at the open
> policy meeting.
> Proposals on which consensus has been reached are then forwarded to the
> LACNIC board who assist in defining an implementation schedule. The
> working group is generally disbanded at this point.
> 4. Proposal
> For any policy proposal requiring consensus decisions of the APNIC
> Membership, the following procedure is proposed:
> 4.1. Discussion before the OPM
> A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing list and to
> the SIG Chair 4 weeks before the start of the OPM.
> The proposal must be in writing and in text which clearly expresses the
> proposal, with explicit mention of any changes being proposed to existing
> policies and the reasons for those changes.
> It is suggested to use a format for the proposal that includes an
> introduction, a summary of the current problem, the proposal, and
> advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed policy. It is useful
> to also review the comparable policy situation in the other RIR regions
> (if applicable) and include a section entitled 'how it will affect APNIC
> If the above 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.
> 4.2. 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
> Members 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
> 4.3. Discussion after the OPM
> Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM will be circulated on the
> appropriate SIG mailing list for a defined 'comment period'.
> Two options have been put forward for the length of the comment period:
> * Option 1 - 8 weeks or
> * Option 2 - until 4 weeks before the next OPM (which is approximately 26
> 4.4. Confirming consensus
> Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial objections
> raised during the 'comment period'. When the 'comment period' has expired,
> the appropriate SIG chair (and co-chairs) will decide whether the
> discussions on the mailing list represent continued consensus.
> If the chair (and co-chairs) observe that there are no 'substantial
> objections' to the proposed policy, consensus is confirmed and the process
> continues as outlined in section 4.5 below.
> If it is observed that there have been 'substantial objections' raised to
> the proposed policy, consensus is not confirmed and the proposal will not
> be implemented.
> The SIG will then discuss (either on the mailing list or in the SIG)
> whether to pursue the proposal or withdraw it.
> 4.5. 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.
> 4.6. Implementation
> In both options above, a 12 weeks period is allowed for implementation.
> This gives the Secretariat and the NIRs sufficient time to make internal
> changes to forms and procedures, as well as gives the community sufficient
> advance notification of the new policy.
> 4.7. Duration of the process
> Under option 1 the minimum amount of time that a policy could take from
> the initial proposal to implementation would be 26 weeks. Under option 2
> it would be 43 weeks.
> 4.8. Flow diagram of policy process
> The revised flow diagram for developing policy is available at:
> 5. Implementation
> This proposal will be implemented upon formal endorsement by APNIC.
> 6. References
> (1) 1st APNIC Meeting: http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/meetings/Jan95/agenda
> (²) 15th APNIC Open Policy Meeting:
> (³) Special Interest Groups:
> (4) APNIC policy process
> (5) APNIC policy process - provoking discussion:
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801