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 – Supporting docs & recommendations –Guides for SIG chairs and for presenters Timelines for circulating proposals – –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) Endorsement by MM? Report of consensus in SIG to MM Consensus? Implementation 3 months Posted to SIG ML for discussion Face to face discussions in public open forum (SIGs) YES 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 Endorsement by MM? Report of consensus SIG to MM Face to face discussions in public open forum (SIGs) Consensus? Posted to SIG ML for discussion Implementation 3 months YES NO