Policy making process
Dear working group, In the beginning there was no documented process of making policy. At some point I started outlining the process in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/howto_develop.html The experience since then is that a couple of elements should be added to this - not necessarily to make a biger or more complicated process, but with the incentive to make the process more open and more transparent. * Proposals should be circulated in writing to the mailinglist in advance of the meetings. Currently we have started calling for contributions and requestion proposals. * There should be detailed technical discussion on the mailinglist before a proposal can be adapted * All policies should be published as RIPE documents * All RIPE documents setting new policies should be published as drafts before becoming final -hph
It may be of interest to the wg that a simmilar refinement of the policy making process is discussed at the coming APNIC meeting: http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2003/06/msg00001.html To: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy]Revised APNIC Policy Process - Proposal From: Anne Lord <anne@apnic.net> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:09:04 +1000 (EST) 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(?), where multiple sessions run in parallel over several days, and attendees convene in groups according to topics of special interest(?). 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 (?) 15th APNIC Open Policy Meeting: http://www.apnic.net/meetings/15/schedule/index.html (?) 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
participants (1)
-
Hans Petter Holen