diff-apnic-111-v003
policy-development-v002.txt | policy-development-draft-v003.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
———————————————————————– | ———————————————————————– | |||
APNIC Document identity | APNIC Document identity | |||
Title: APNIC policy development process | Title: APNIC Policy Development Process | |||
Short title: policy-development | ||||
Document ref: APNIC-111 | ||||
Version: 002 | ||||
Date of original publication: 19 February 2004 | ||||
Date of current version: 19 February 2014 | ||||
Review scheduled: APNIC-111-v001 | ||||
Obsoletes: n/a | ||||
Status: Active | ||||
Comments: Change to Comment Period length: Step 3. | ||||
APNIC policy development process | Short title: policy-development | |||
Document ref: APNIC-111 | ||||
Version: 003 | ||||
Date of original publication: 19 February 2014 | ||||
Date of current version: TBD | ||||
Review scheduled: n/a | ||||
Obsoletes: APNIC-111-v002 | ||||
Status: Draft | ||||
Comments: Document review recommendations as | ||||
reported at APNIC 50 | ||||
————————————————————————– | ||||
Table of contents | Table of contents | |||
—————– | —————– | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
2. Scope | 2. Scope | |||
3. Definitions | 3. Definitions | |||
3.1. Policy proposal | 3.1. Policy proposal | |||
4. Proposal process | 4. Proposal process | |||
Step 1: Discussion before the APNIC Conference | ||||
Step 1: Discussion before the OPM | Step 2: Consensus at the APNIC Conference | |||
Step 2: Consensus at the OPM | Step 3: Discussion after the APNIC Conference | |||
Step 3: Discussion after the OPM | ||||
Step 4: Confirming consensus | Step 4: Confirming consensus | |||
Step 5: Endorsement from the EC | Step 5: Endorsement from the APNIC EC | |||
5. Appendices/templates | ||||
5.1 Basic steps in the consensus decision making process | ||||
5.2 Policy SIG Chair Scripts | ||||
5.3 Guidelines for presenting a policy proposal | ||||
5.4 Presentation outline | ||||
5.5 Guidelines for informational presentations | ||||
6. Code of conduct | ||||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
—————- | —————- | |||
This document describes the process through which policy proposals | This document describes the process through which policy proposals are to be submitted, | |||
are to be submitted, considered and adopted by APNIC. Policies are | considered and adopted by APNIC. Policies are developed by the Internet community through | |||
developed by the membership and the broader Internet community | a bottom-up process of consultation and consensus. | |||
through a bottom-up process of consultation and consensus. | ||||
The forums for policy development are twice-yearly APNIC Open Policy | This document should be read in conjunction with the APNIC SIG Guidelines which provides | |||
Meetings (OPMs) and discussions on Special Interest Group (SIG) | important operational guidance for Policy SIG Chairs, proposal authors, and other Policy SIG | |||
mailing lists. | participants. | |||
Anyone may attend the meetings and participate in discussions and | The APNIC Policy SIG is the forum for APNIC Policy Development Process (PDP). Opinions expressed | |||
the decision making. | at the twice-yearly APNIC Open Policy Meetings(OPMs), on the Policy SIG mailing list, and other | |||
remote participation mechanisms, are all considered by the Policy SIG Chairs. | ||||
Anyone with an interest in the management and use of Internet number resources in the Asia Pacific | ||||
may join the mailing list and participate in the OPM, physically or remotely, to discuss and | ||||
take part in the bottom-up decision making process. | ||||
RIR, ICANN, and PTI Secretariat staff do not participate in consensus. | ||||
2. Scope | 2. Scope | |||
——— | ——— | |||
This document describes the process through which policy-related | ||||
proposals may be submitted, considered, and adopted by the APNIC | This document describes the process through which policy-related proposals may be submitted, considered, | |||
community, including a step-by-step explanation of the process. | and adopted by the APNIC community, including a step-by-step explanation of the process and apendices. | |||
This process will be followed in the creation of any new policy, as | ||||
well as any substantial or significant changes to existing policy. | This process will be followed in the creation of any new policy, as well as any changes to the existing policy. | |||
3. Definitions | 3. Definitions | |||
————— | ————— | |||
3.1. Policy proposal | 3.1. Policy proposal | |||
Policy proposals are proposals which have been officially | ||||
submitted for the consideration of the APNIC community, and | A policy proposal is a formal, written submission that outlines a Problem Statement or an idea for either | |||
which propose either a new policy or a change to an existing | a new policy or a change to an existing policy. If a policy proposal is successful it will become a policy. | |||
policy. Upon adoption, these policies will apply to the | ||||
operation of APNIC, the APNIC Secretariat, and the APNIC | Policy proposals are officially submitted to the Policy SIG Chairs for the consideration of the APNIC | |||
membership. | community. | |||
The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion at the forthcoming OPM if: | ||||
The proposal is out of scope for the Policy SIG | ||||
The proposal is insufficiently developed to be the basis for a useful discussion | ||||
The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority | ||||
Upon adoption, these policies will apply to the operation of APNIC, the APNIC Secretariat, NIRs, and | ||||
APNIC account holders. | ||||
4. Proposal process | 4. Proposal process | |||
——————– | ——————– | |||
A policy proposal must go through the following chronological steps | A policy proposal must go through the following chronological steps in order to be adopted by APNIC. | |||
in order to be adopted by APNIC. | ||||
Step 1. Discussion before the OPM | Step 1. Discussion before the APNIC Conference | |||
A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG mailing | A formal proposal must be submitted to the Policy SIG Chairs before the Proposal Deadline they set. | |||
list and to the SIG Chair four weeks before the start of the | ||||
OPM. | ||||
The proposal must be in text which clearly expresses the | Accepted proposals must be sent to the Policy SIG mailing list for discussion at least four weeks before | |||
proposal, with explicit mention of any changes being proposed to | the start of the OPM. | |||
existing policies and the reasons for those changes. | ||||
The APNIC Secretariat will recommend a preferred proposal | The proposal must be in text which clearly expresses the proposal, with explicit mention of any changes being | |||
format. | proposed to existing policies and the reasons for those changes. | |||
If the four-week deadline is not met, proposals may still be | The APNIC Secretariat will recommend a preferred proposal format as mentioned in Section 5.4 of this document. | |||
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. | ||||
Step 2. Consensus at the OPM | If the four-week deadline is not met, proposals may still be submitted and presented for discussion | |||
at the OPM; however, no decision may be made by the OPM regarding the proposal. The proposal will | ||||
need to be resubmitted in time for the following OPM, if the author wishes to pursue the proposal. | ||||
Consensus is defined as “general agreement” as observed by the | Step 2. Consensus at the APNIC Conference | |||
Chair of the meeting. | ||||
Consensus must be reached first at the SIG session and | Consensus is defined as “general agreement” as observed by the Chair of the OPM/AGM/AMM. For further information | |||
afterwards at the Member Meeting for the process to continue. If | refer to Section 5.1 of this document. | |||
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 | Consensus must be reached first at the OPM and afterwards at the AGM/AMM for the process to continue. | |||
Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AMM | If there is no consensus on a proposal at either of these forums, the Policy SIG Chair(s) will decide | |||
will be circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing list for a | whether to ask the author to amend the proposal or if it should be withdrawn. | |||
period. This is known as the “comment period”. | ||||
The duration of the “comment period” will be not shorter than | Step 3. Discussion after the APNIC Conference | |||
four weeks and not longer than eight weeks. The decision to | ||||
extend more than four weeks, including the duration of the | Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AGM/AMM will be circulated on the Policy SIG | |||
extension, will be determined at the sole discretion of the SIG | mailing list for a period. This is known as the “comment period”. | |||
Chair. | ||||
The duration of the “comment period” will be not shorter than four weeks and not 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 Policy SIG Chair. | ||||
Step 4. Confirming consensus | Step 4. Confirming consensus | |||
Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial | Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are major objections raised during the “comment period”. | |||
objections raised during the “comment period”. When the “comment | When the “comment period” has expired, the Policy SIG Chairs will decide whether the discussions on the | |||
period” has expired, the appropriate SIG Chair (and Co-chairs) | mailing list represent continued consensus. | |||
will decide whether the discussions on the mailing list | ||||
represent continued consensus. | ||||
If the Chair (and Co-chairs) observe that there are no | If the Policy SIG Chairs observe that there are no “major objections” to the proposed policy, consensus | |||
“substantial objections” to the proposed policy, consensus is | is confirmed and the process continues as outlined below in Step 5. | |||
confirmed and the process continues as outlined below in Step 5. | ||||
If it is observed that there have been “substantial objections” | If it is observed that there have been “major objections” raised to the proposed policy, consensus is not | |||
raised to the proposed policy, consensus is not confirmed and | confirmed and the proposal will not be implemented. | |||
the proposal will not be implemented. | ||||
The SIG will then discuss (either on the mailing list or in the | The Policy SIG Chairs will then decide whether to pursue the proposal or abandon it. | |||
SIG) whether to pursue the proposal or withdraw it. | ||||
Step 5. Endorsement from the EC | Step 5. Endorsement from the APNIC EC | |||
The EC, in their capacity as representatives of the membership, | The APNIC Executive Council (EC), in their capacity as representatives of the membership, will be asked to | |||
will be asked to endorse the consensus proposals arising from | endorse the consensus proposals arising from the OPM/AGM/AMM and the Policy SIG mailing lists for implementation | |||
the OPM and the SIG mailing lists for implementation at the next | at the next EC meeting. | |||
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 | In reviewing the proposals for implementation, the EC may refer proposals back to the Policy SIG for further discussion | |||
the endorsement to a formal vote of adoption by the APNIC | with clearly stated reasons. | |||
members. | ||||
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. | ||||
5. Appendices/templates | ||||
5.1 Basic steps in the consensus decision making process | ||||
1. A proposal is made. | ||||
2. The Policy SIG Chair invites participants to comment on the proposal. The Chair encourages discussion about both | ||||
the pros and cons of the proposal. This should happen both on the mailing list and at the OPM. | ||||
If there is little or no comment for or against the proposal, the Chair needs to assess the level of interest in the proposal. | ||||
Perhaps the community does not believe a problem exists, or, alternatively, the participants are hesitant to begin discussion. | ||||
The Chair may ask for a �show of hands� indicating if they: | ||||
Strongly support | ||||
Support | ||||
Are Neutral | ||||
Oppose | ||||
Strongly Oppose | ||||
The Chair may ask this for individual elements of the proposal. | ||||
The show of hands is not a vote. It is a way of broadly gauging opinion. Chair(s) may use electronic equivalents to gauge the | ||||
views of remote participants. | ||||
If the majority of the participants indicate that they have no opinion, the Chair and the author should work to stimulate discussion | ||||
about the proposal. | ||||
The Chair may ask the author to restate the problem the proposal attempts to solve. | ||||
If the participants do not believe that the problem is real, or significant, the Chair should ask the author to reconsider | ||||
the need for the proposal. | ||||
1. If comments are all in favour of the proposal and there are no objections, the Chair can assume consensus. | ||||
2. If there are objections, the Chair can ask the dissenters to decide if their objections are: | ||||
i. Minor objections | ||||
If the proposal goes forward, the dissenters believe that some problems may occur for some members in the group. | ||||
The participants should work together to see if the proposal can be modified to overcome these minor objections. | ||||
However, it is not always possible to overcome these objections. If this is the case, the Chair should ask the | ||||
dissenters if they are prepared to acknowledge that the overall advantages of the proposal outweigh their objections | ||||
and if the dissenters are willing to stand aside. | ||||
ii. Major objections | ||||
If the proposal goes forward, the dissenters believe that major problems will occur for parts of the community and | ||||
that the proposal cannot be adopted in its current format. | ||||
The Chair should devote sufficient time for participants to discuss ways to overcome major objections. As in the case | ||||
of minor objections, participants, including the proponent, should work together to develop solutions that overcome the | ||||
objections. | ||||
The process of working together to create a proposal acceptable to all participants may take more than one OPM phase. It is | ||||
possible that the community may consider an issue to be important, but not be able to reach consensus on the proposed solution | ||||
during one OPM. When this happens, the Chair should encourage the proponent and the community to continue discussion and develop | ||||
a more widely accepted proposal to be presented at the following OPM. | ||||
5.2 Policy SIG Chair Scripts | ||||
Instructions for Chairs declaring the result of a consensus process have been provided by APNIC counsel. In formally announcing | ||||
the outcome of any OPM proposal discussion, the Chair of the meeting should say the following: | ||||
1. Consensus | ||||
This policy proposal has been discussed on the APNIC Policy SIG mailing list and at today’s Open Policy Meeting. The APNIC PDP | ||||
requires the community to reach consensus or a general agreement on the proposal before it can proceed. I have conferred with my | ||||
fellow Chairs and we have noted the community’s comments for and against the adoption of this proposal. In consideration, | ||||
we believe that the community has reached consensus on this proposal. The next step in the PDP is to take this proposal to the | ||||
AGM/AMM and seek continued consensus there. The proposal will then be posted back to the mailing list for a | ||||
comment period. I would like to thank the author for this proposal and thank all participants for considering this and coming to | ||||
a decision. Thank you | ||||
2. No Consensus | ||||
This policy proposal has been discussed on the APNIC Policy SIG mailing list and at today’s Open Policy Meeting. The APNIC PDP | ||||
requires the community to reach consensus or a general agreement on the proposal before it can proceed. I have conferred with my | ||||
fellow Chairs and we have noted the community’s comments for and against the adoption of this proposal and in consideration, we | ||||
believe that the community has not reached a consensus on this proposal. We thank the author for their proposal and ask that they | ||||
. | ||||
5.3 Guidelines for presenting a policy proposal | ||||
After a minimum of four weeks of discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list, the proposal is presented in the OPM during an APNIC | ||||
Conference. The aim of the presentation is to assist OPM participants understand the proposal text. | ||||
If the proposal author wishes to incorporate changes to the proposal (perhaps based on the mailing list discussion), these | ||||
changes must be incorporated in both the proposal text and the presentation slides. Updated versions of policy proposals can be | ||||
submitted to the Policy SIG Chair at any time. | ||||
In the weeks before the OPM, proposal authors should subscribe to the Policy SIG mailing list to follow the discussion about | ||||
the proposal. This allows authors the chance to incorporate feedback in a new version of the proposal to be presented at the OPM. | ||||
Note: Remember that the discussion at the APNIC Conference is not the end of the proposal process. Proposals that reach consensus | ||||
at the OPM and the AGM/AMM are sent to the Policy SIG mailing list for a final Comment Period. During this final comment period, | ||||
the community may continue to raise objections. If, the author(s) is not subscribed to and actively following the appropriate | ||||
SIG mailing list, they will not be able to respond to community objections. In cases where the author does not respond to objections | ||||
in the comment period, the Chair may have no choice but declare that consensus has not been reached. | ||||
5.4 Presentation outline | ||||
Presentations for policy proposals should contain approximately 9 slides, including title and summary slides. The suggested structure | ||||
of the slides is as follows: | ||||
Slide 1: Title | ||||
The first slide should include: | ||||
The name of the proposal and the tracking number given to the proposal by the APNIC Secretariat | ||||
The author�s name | ||||
The date and location of the OPM | ||||
Slide 2: Problem Statement | ||||
This should be a simple explanation of the problem the proposal seeks to resolve. | ||||
Slides 3: Objective of policy change | ||||
In simple terms, what will the policy look like when the stated problem is resolved? | ||||
Slide 4: Situation in other regions | ||||
Do other Regional Internet Registries have similar policies, or policy proposals? Have you, or do you plan to submit this | ||||
proposal in other regions? | ||||
Slides 5: Proposed policy solution | ||||
What specific changes are required to the current policies to resolve the problem? | ||||
Slide 6: Advantages/Disadvantages | ||||
Summarise and list any advantages or disadvantages of the proposal. | ||||
Slide 7: Impact on resource holders | ||||
Briefly explain how this may affect resource holders in the APNIC region. For example, would they need to update their | ||||
internal IT systems to meet the requirements of the policy. | ||||
Slide 8: Summary | ||||
Summarise previous slides. Try to describe the main gain to be made from changing the policy. | ||||
Include reference to relevant translated materials on the web site, if applicable. | ||||
Slide 9: Questions | ||||
This final slide invites participants to ask questions about the proposal and begin the discussion. | ||||
5.5 Guidelines for informational presentations | ||||
The requirements for informational presentations are not as rigid as those for proposal presentations. However, it is suggested | ||||
that presenters include a title slide and summary slide. Presenters should also consider the general presentation hints outlined | ||||
SIG Guideliens in Section 6. | ||||
6. Code of conduct | ||||
—————— | ||||
APNIC coordinates many community activities, including conferences, meetings, trainings, workshops, social events and digital platforms. | ||||
These are organized for the benefit of all participants and are intended to be valuable and enjoyable to all. A Community Code of Conduct | ||||
explains expectations for anyone participating in these events and platforms, including delegates, guests, speakers, contributors, commenters, | ||||
APNIC staff and all others involved. It applies not only to physical events, but also to remote participants, online meeting spaces and | ||||
digital platforms. < https://www.apnic.net/events/apnic-community-code-of-conduct/> | ||||
End of changes. 31 change blocks. | ||||
94 lines changed or deleted | 96 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |