----------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-108-v001: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposers: Dean Pemberton Izumi Okutani 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 the exact parts of the documentation that are inconsistent or do not match with the reality of how the process is implemented. It also describes the problems that each of these inconsistencies cause. It 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 three of these, which are related to the process of the consensus decisions, as they are a core part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). The relevant steps in the PDP [APNICPDP-1] to be addressed in this proposal are presented below for reference purposes: - Step 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 Member 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. - 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". A) Timing Requirements for the Policy-SIG chairs to announce consensus in the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Consensus must be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting for the process to continue.” While neither the PDP document nor the SIG Guidelines specify the timing of consensus, current practice is for the chairs to decide if consensus has been reached immediately after calling for consensus from the floor. This does not allow enough time for the chairs to make their consensus decision based on the consideration of various factors raised from the floor as well as discussion among themselves. In recent meetings there have been situations where consensus has been particularly hard to gauge.  This may be due to a smaller number of strongly held opinions, or an even split between supporters and objectors.  In these cases it may assist the Policy-SIG chairs in returning an appropriate decision if more time was afforded them for internal discussion. This is particularly relevant where there might be disagreement between the Chairs. B) Requiring for consensus to be called and demonstrated at the AMM ---------------------------------------------------------------- As above Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Consensus must be reached first at the SIG session and afterwards at the Member Meeting for the process to continue.” In practice today this is followed exactly. At the OPM a policy proposal is required to gain consensus, and then the same consensus is required to be shown at the AMM on the next day.  While this may not be considered a real problem, it can not be argued that it is an effective use of time and resources. This process of calling for consensus once in the OPM and again at the AMM has its history in the days when different SIGs, working in isolation, may have produced conflicting policies at same meeting. Calling for consensus at the AMM was a way for these conflicts to come to light and give the community a final chance to support one but not both of the policies proposed by the different SIGs. At APNIC today the Policy-SIG is only SIG that has a mandate to propose policy changes. As such the process of calling for consensus at the OPM as well as the AMM is redundant.  If members have objections, they can are free to participate in the OPM which is held the day before the AMM in the same venue. C) The length of the required comment period for successful policy proposals after the AMM --------------------------------------------------------------- As above Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “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". 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 changes which seek to resolve the problems outlined above. A) Timing Requirements for the Policy-SIG chairs to announce consensus in the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) ------------------------------------------------------------------ In order to ensure that the SIG chairs have time to discuss any issues relevant to considering consensus for or against a proposal, the first paragraph of Step 2 of the PDP should be replaced with: --------[APNICPDP-1]-------- Step 2. Consensus at the OPM Consensus is defined as "general agreement" as observed by the Chair of the meeting. The Chair, at their sole discretion, may wish to confer with their Co-Chairs before judging consensus. This discussion may occur in private and the final determination of consensus should be given by the Chair before the end of the OPM. The Chair should ensure that it is made clear if consensus is currently being gauged on part of a proposal, or the proposal in its entirety. This will ensure that OPM participants are clear in their responses. --------[APNICPDP-1]-------- B) Requiring for consensus to be called and demonstrated at the AMM --------------------------------------------------------------- In order to relax the requirement for some policies to gain consensus at both the OPM and the Member Meeting, the second paragraph of Step 2 of the PDP should be replaced with: --------[APNICPDP-1]-------- Consensus must be reached at the SIG session. The SIG Chair may, at their sole discretion, seek an additional call for consensus at the Member Meeting for the process to continue. If the call for consensus on a proposal at either of these forums is not successful, the SIG (either on the mailing list or at a future OPM) will discuss whether to amend the proposal or to withdraw it. --------[APNICPDP-1]-------- C) 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 2 of the PDP should be replaced with: --------[APNICPDP-1]-------- Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM will be circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing list for a period, the duration will not be shorter than two weeks but may be extended on a case-by-case basis 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: There is a possibility that by removing a requirement for consensus at the AMM that APNIC members not present at the OPM may not feel that they have endorsed a proposal. Given that the OPM occurs the day before the AMM in the same location, it would not be unreasonable to assume that any interested party would have already provided feedback during the OPM however. 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., “APNIC35 Policy-SIG Informational: Questions for Clarification in the APNIC PDP”, 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