[sig-policy]Revised APNIC Policy Process - Proposal

[Anne Lord <anne@apnic.net>]

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,

Anne

___________________________________________________________

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@apnic.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@apnic.net mailing list. This was presented in draft at APNIC15 
and is archived at: 

http://www.apnic.net/meetings/15/sigs/policy/docs/
addpol-prop-apnic-doc-review.doc

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: 
http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/index.html 

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 
discussion'(5). 

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 
informal. 

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 
members?'

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 
it.

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 
  weeks)

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:
http://www.apnic.net/images/other/policy-dev-20030611.gif

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: 
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/15/schedule/index.html

(³) Special Interest Groups: 
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/archive/sigs/index.html

(4) APNIC policy process 
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/15/sigs/policy/docs/
addrpol-pres-anne-policy-process.ppt

(5) APNIC policy process - provoking discussion: 
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/15/sigs/policy/docs/
addrpol-pres-randy-policy-process-discussion.pdf