|

1. Policy Development Process Review and Recommendations – v003(draft)


APNIC Document identity

Title:                                            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

  1. 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0
  2. Introduction
  3. Scope
  4. Definitions

3.1.  Policy proposal

  1. 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0
  2. Proposal process

Step 1: Discussion before the APNIC Conference

Step 2: Consensus at the APNIC Conference

Step 3: Discussion after the APNIC Conference

Step 4: Confirming consensus

Step 5: Endorsement from the APNIC EC

  1. 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0
  2. 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

  1. 25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0
  2. Code of conduct

1.  Introduction

26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 This document describes the process through which policy proposals are to be submitted, considered, and adopted by APNIC. Policies are developed by the Internet community through a bottom-up process of consultation and consensus.

27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 This document should be read in conjunction with the APNIC SIG Guidelines which provides important operational guidance for Policy SIG Chairs, proposal authors, and other Policy SIG participants.

28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 The APNIC Policy SIG is the forum for APNIC Policy Development Process (PDP). Opinions expressed    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.

29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 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.

30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 RIR, ICANN, and PTI Secretariat staff do not participate in the consensus.

2.  Scope

31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0 This document describes the process through which policy-related proposals may be submitted, considered, and adopted by the APNIC community, including a step-by-step explanation of the process and appendices.

32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0 This process will be followed in the creation of any new policy, as well as any changes to the existing policy.

3.  Definitions

3.1.  Policy proposal

33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0 A policy proposal is a formal, written submission that outlines a Problem Statement or an idea for either a new policy or a change to an existing policy. If a policy proposal is successful it will become a policy.

34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 0 Policy proposals are officially submitted to the Policy SIG Chairs for the consideration of the APNIC community.

35 Leave a comment on paragraph 35 0 The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion at the forthcoming OPM if:

  • 36 Leave a comment on paragraph 36 0
  • 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

37 Leave a comment on paragraph 37 0 Upon adoption, these policies will apply to the operation of APNIC, the APNIC Secretariat, NIRs, and APNIC account holders.

4.  Proposal process

38 Leave a comment on paragraph 38 0 A policy proposal must go through the following chronological steps to be adopted by APNIC.

Step 1. Discussion before the APNIC Conference

39 Leave a comment on paragraph 39 0 A formal proposal must be submitted to the Policy SIG Chairs before the proposal deadline they set.

40 Leave a comment on paragraph 40 0 Accepted proposals must be sent to the Policy SIG mailing list for discussion at least four (4) weeks before the start of the OPM.

41 Leave a comment on paragraph 41 0 The proposal must be in text which clearly expresses the proposal, with explicit mention of any changes being proposed to existing policies and the reasons for those changes.

42 Leave a comment on paragraph 42 0 The APNIC Secretariat will recommend a preferred proposal format as mentioned in Section 5.4 of this document.

43 Leave a comment on paragraph 43 0 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.

Step 2. Consensus at the APNIC Conference

44 Leave a comment on paragraph 44 0 Consensus is defined as “general agreement” as observed by the Chair of the OPM/AGM/AMM. For further information refer to Section 5.1 of this document.

45 Leave a comment on paragraph 45 0 Consensus must be reached first at the OPM and afterwards at the AGM/AMM for the process to continue.

46 Leave a comment on paragraph 46 0 If there is no consensus on a proposal at either of these forums, the Policy SIG Chair(s) will decide whether to ask the author to amend the proposal or if it should be withdrawn.

Step 3. Discussion after the APNIC Conference

47 Leave a comment on paragraph 47 0 Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AGM/AMM will be circulated on the Policy SIG mailing list for a period. This is known as the “comment period”.

48 Leave a comment on paragraph 48 0 The duration of the “comment period” will be not shorter than four (4) weeks and not longer than eight (8) weeks.

49 Leave a comment on paragraph 49 0 The decision to extend more than four (4) weeks, including the duration of the extension, will be determined at the sole discretion of the Policy SIG Chair.

Step 4. Confirming consensus

50 Leave a comment on paragraph 50 0 Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are major objections raised during the “comment period”. When the “comment period” has expired, the Policy SIG Chairs will decide whether the discussions on the mailing list represent continued consensus.

51 Leave a comment on paragraph 51 0 If the Policy SIG Chairs observe that there are no “major objections” to the proposed policy, consensus is confirmed, and the process continues as outlined below in Step 5.

52 Leave a comment on paragraph 52 0 If it is observed that there have been “major objections” raised to the proposed policy, consensus is not confirmed, and the proposal will not be implemented.

53 Leave a comment on paragraph 53 0 The Policy SIG Chairs will then decide whether to pursue the proposal or abandon it.

Step 5. Endorsement from the APNIC EC

54 Leave a comment on paragraph 54 0 The APNIC Executive Council (EC), in their capacity as representatives of the membership, will be asked to endorse the consensus proposals arising from the OPM/AGM/AMM and the Policy SIG mailing lists for implementation at the next EC meeting.

55 Leave a comment on paragraph 55 0 In reviewing the proposals for implementation, the EC may refer proposals back to the Policy SIG for further discussion with clearly stated reasons.

56 Leave a comment on paragraph 56 0 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. 57 Leave a comment on paragraph 57 0
  2. A proposal is made.
  3. 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.

58 Leave a comment on paragraph 58 0 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.

59 Leave a comment on paragraph 59 0 The Chair may ask for a ‘show of hands’ indicating if they:

61 Leave a comment on paragraph 61 0 The Chair may ask this for individual elements of the proposal.

62 Leave a comment on paragraph 62 0 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.

63 Leave a comment on paragraph 63 0 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.

64 Leave a comment on paragraph 64 0 The Chair may ask the author to restate the problem the proposal attempts to solve.

65 Leave a comment on paragraph 65 0 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. 66 Leave a comment on paragraph 66 0
  2. If comments are all in favor of the proposal and there are no objections, the Chair can assume consensus.
  3. If there are objections, the Chair can ask the dissenters to decide if their objections are:

67 Leave a comment on paragraph 67 0 Minor objections

68 Leave a comment on paragraph 68 0 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.

69 Leave a comment on paragraph 69 0 Major objections

70 Leave a comment on paragraph 70 0 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.

71 Leave a comment on paragraph 71 0  

72 Leave a comment on paragraph 72 0 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.

73 Leave a comment on paragraph 73 0 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

74 Leave a comment on paragraph 74 0 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:

75 Leave a comment on paragraph 75 0 Consensus

76 Leave a comment on paragraph 76 0 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 [insert length here] 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!

77 Leave a comment on paragraph 77 0 No Consensus

78 Leave a comment on paragraph 78 0 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

79 Leave a comment on paragraph 79 0 believe that the community has not reached a consensus on this proposal. We thank the author for their proposal and ask that they [insert decision; abandon or re-submit incorporating community feedback].

5.3 Guidelines for presenting a policy proposal

80 Leave a comment on paragraph 80 0 After a minimum of four (4) 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.

81 Leave a comment on paragraph 81 0 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.

82 Leave a comment on paragraph 82 0 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.

83 Leave a comment on paragraph 83 0 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

84 Leave a comment on paragraph 84 0 Presentations for policy proposals should contain approximately 9 slides, including title and summary slides. The suggested structure of the slides is as follows:

85 Leave a comment on paragraph 85 0 Slide 1: Title

86 Leave a comment on paragraph 86 0 The name of the proposal and the tracking number given to the proposal by the APNIC Secretariat

87 Leave a comment on paragraph 87 0 The author’s name

88 Leave a comment on paragraph 88 0 The date and location of the OPM

89 Leave a comment on paragraph 89 0 Slide 2: Problem Statement

90 Leave a comment on paragraph 90 0 This should be a simple explanation of the problem the proposal seeks to resolve.

91 Leave a comment on paragraph 91 0 Slides 3: Objective of policy change

92 Leave a comment on paragraph 92 0 In simple terms, what will the policy look like when the stated problem is resolved?

93 Leave a comment on paragraph 93 0 Slide 4: Situation in other regions

94 Leave a comment on paragraph 94 0 Do other Regional Internet Registries have similar policies, or policy proposals?

95 Leave a comment on paragraph 95 0 Have you, or do you plan to submit this proposal in other regions?

96 Leave a comment on paragraph 96 0 Slides 5: Proposed policy solution

97 Leave a comment on paragraph 97 0 What specific changes are required to the current policies to resolve the problem?

98 Leave a comment on paragraph 98 0 Slide 6: Advantages/Disadvantages

99 Leave a comment on paragraph 99 0 Summarize and list any advantages or disadvantages of the proposal.

100 Leave a comment on paragraph 100 0 Slide 7: Impact on resource holders

101 Leave a comment on paragraph 101 0 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.

102 Leave a comment on paragraph 102 0 Slide 8: Summary

103 Leave a comment on paragraph 103 0 Summarize 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.

104 Leave a comment on paragraph 104 0 Slide 9: Questions

105 Leave a comment on paragraph 105 0 This final slide invites participants to ask questions about the proposal and begin the discussion.

5.5 Guidelines for informational presentations

106 Leave a comment on paragraph 106 0 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 in SIG Guidelines Section 6.

6. Code of conduct

107 Leave a comment on paragraph 107 0 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.

Page 2

Source: https://comment.apnic.net/?page_id=38