-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Introduction
2. Scope
3. Definitions
3.1. Policy proposal
4. 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
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
----------------
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.
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.
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.
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
---------
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.
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
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.
Policy proposals are officially submitted to the Policy SIG Chairs for the consideration of the APNIC
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
--------------------
A policy proposal must go through the following chronological steps in order to be adopted by APNIC.
Step 1. Discussion before the APNIC Conference
A formal proposal must be submitted to the Policy SIG Chairs before the proposal deadline they set.
Accepted proposals must be sent to the Policy SIG mailing list for discussion at least four weeks before
the start of the OPM.
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.
The APNIC Secretariat will recommend a preferred proposal format as mentioned in Section 5.4 of this document.
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
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.
Consensus must be reached first at the OPM and afterwards at the AGM/AMM for the process to continue.
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
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".
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
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.
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.
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.
The Policy SIG Chairs will then decide whether to pursue the proposal or abandon it.
Step 5. Endorsement from the APNIC EC
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.
In reviewing the proposals for implementation, the EC may refer proposals back to the Policy 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.
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 [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
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
[insert decision; abandon or re-submit incorporating community feedback].
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/>