Transcript A Review of Policy Development Processes in the Asia Pacific Region Address Policy SIG APNIC 15, Taipei, Taiwan 27 February 2003

A Review of Policy Development
Processes in the Asia Pacific Region
Address Policy SIG
APNIC 15, Taipei, Taiwan
27 February 2003
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
Motivation & Problem
Policy Development Principles
Process Elements
Process Flowchart
Other RIRs
Current Needs Met?
Motivation
• Last review of policy process
– October 2000, Brisbane OPM
• Early infancy of SIG programme
– Today more structured due to work by
SIG chairs, Community & Secretariat
• Dynamic nature of industry
– Periodic review necessary
Problem
• What is the best process to create
‘good policy’ in this forum?
– Balance the needs of industry and
community consultative processes
– Representing all interests
• How do you ensure sound technical
outcomes?
Principles of Policy
Development
• ‘Bottom up’, consensus based
decision making
– Community proposes and approves
policy
– No policies implemented without
consensus of community
• Open and transparent
– Anyone can attend
– All decisions archived
What is Consensus?
• OED definition
– “General agreement in opinion”
• Show of hands to judge ‘general agreement’
– Often a count is taken to assist but is not
essential
• Those in favour, those against
• Non-voters do not block proposal
• If difficult to judge, unlikely to be consensus
– Final call by SIG chair
• Consensus judged at face to face meetings
– Not on mailing lists
Elements of the Process
• APNIC Open Policy Meetings
– Special interest groups (SIGs) and
Open NIR meeting
• Working groups (WGs)
– Member meetings (MMs)
• Mailing lists
– Each SIG has a dedicated mailing list for
discussions
Policy Development
Documentation
• Policy making process description
– http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/index.html
• Supporting docs & recommendations
– Guides for SIG chairs and for presenters
• Timelines for circulating proposals
– http://www.apnic.net/meetings/archive/sigs/index.html
– SIG administrative procedures (draft)
• Electing new chairs, creating new SIGs
– SIG charters (draft)
How Does it Work?
New Policy or amendment
proposed on SIG mailing list (ML)
Posted to SIG ML for discussion
Face to face discussions in
public open forum (SIGs)
Consensus?
NO
YES
Report of consensus in SIG to MM
Endorsement by MM?
YES
Implementation 3 months
NO
Role of the APNIC EC
• By-laws state EC is empowered to
– Consider broad Internet policy issues in
order to ensure that APNIC's policies and
strategies fully respond to the constantly
changing Internet environment
– Act on behalf of the Members in the
interval between AGMs
• EC act in ‘emergency’ or as point of
‘appeal’
– May be asked to consider emergency
proposals or action on policy outcomes
Advantages and Disadvantages
• Advantages
– Review of SIG outcomes
• Attendees at MM have final sign off of all consensus
proposals before implementation
– Flexible process, well documented
• Disadvantages
– Discussions at MM may be repeated or reach
different conclusions to the SIG
• Difficult for chair to balance needs of each
– Limited use of mailing lists for discussions
• May be inappropriate for region?
Other RIRs - ARIN
Other RIRs - LACNIC
• Working groups (WGs)
– Volunteers (7 or less) work on new policy or
modifications
• Mailing lists
– Feedback/discussion on WG proposals
• Discussion in Open Policy Forum
– OPF is empowered to make consensus
decisions
– If proposal accepted LACNIC board defines
implementation schedule
• WG dissolves
– If proposal does not reach consensus
• WG discussion continues
Other RIRs – RIPE NCC
• Proposal/idea usually sent to WG ML
– Not a formal requirement
• Discussion on WG ML
• Presentation at RIPE WG meeting
– WG empowered to make policy decisions
• Informational reports to the plenary meeting
• Reports of decision to the mailing list
– Informal ‘ratification’
• Comment period
• Implementation details
• Draft published
How Does it Work? Discussion
New Policy or amendment
proposed on SIG mailing list
Posted to SIG ML for discussion
Face to face discussions in
public open forum (SIGs)
Consensus?
NO
YES
Report of consensus SIG to MM
Endorsement by MM?
YES
Implementation 3 months
NO