Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy-chair] prop-108 final 8 week comment period
Remember the deadline for comments: 24:00 (UTC+10) Wednesday, 6 November 2013
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
> Dear colleagues
>
> Version 2 of prop-108 Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development
> Process, reached consensus at the APNIC 36 Policy SIG and later at the
> APNIC Member Meeting.
>
> This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
> Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
> for the final 8-week comment period.
>
> At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments
> made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 36 still holds.
>
> If consensus holds, the Chairs of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive
> Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
>
> - Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
> - Deadline for comments: 24:00 (UTC+10) Wednesday, 6 November 2013
>
>
>
> Proposal details
> ----------------
>
> A proposal to optimize and/or disambiguate procedures carried out under
> the current APNIC PDP.
>
> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
> links to the APNIC 36 meeting archive, are available at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-108
>
> Regards
>
> Andy and Masato
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> prop-108-v002: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Proposers: Dean Pemberton <dean at internetnz dot net dot nz>
> Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
>
>
> 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 one part of
> the documentation that are inconsistent or do not match with the reality
> of how the process is implemented. It also describes the problem and
> 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 one of these issues.
>
> The relevant steps in the PDP [APNICPDP-1] to be addressed in this
> proposal are presented below for reference purposes:
>
>
> - 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".
>
>
> . The length of the required comment period for successful policy
> proposals after the AMM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As above Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that âProposals
> 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
> ---------------------------
>
> This section will propose a change which seeks to resolve the problem
> outlined above.
>
>
> The length of the required comment period for successful policy
> proposals after the AMM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In order to allow for the shortening of this period, Step 3 of the
> PDP should be replaced with:
>
> --------[APNICPDP-1]--------
>
> Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AMM will be
> circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing list for a period, the
> duration of which will not be shorter than four weeks but no 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 Chair.
>
> This is known as the "comment period".
>
> --------[APNICPDP-1]--------
>
>
> 5. Pros/Cons
> -------------
>
> Advantages:
>
> The changes outlined above will ensure that the APNIC PDP is kept
> inline with best current practice of the operation of the SIGs
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> None at present
>
>
> 6. Impact on APNIC
> -------------------
>
> These changes will ensure that the development of policy within APNIC
> continues to occur in a standardised, consistent framework.
>
>
> 7. References
> ------------------
>
> [APNICPDP-1] APNIC policy development process - 19 February 2004
> Accessed from http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/policy-development.txt
>
> [PSIG35-1] Yamanishi, M., âAPNIC35 Policy-SIG Informational: Questions
> for Clarification in the APNIC PDPâ, APNIC 35, Singapore, 28 February
> 2013. Accessed from
> http://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/58992/ambiguouts
> -points-in-pdp-2013027_1361972669.pdf