Community Discussion on Consensus, by Masato Yamanishi. A presentation given at APNIC 38 during the Policy SIG 1.

1. Community Discussion
on Consensus
Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Co-Chair
APNIC 38 Policy SIG Meeting
18 September 2014

2. What we have today?
1. Policy Development Process (PDP)
– Master of Policies
– http://www.apnic.net/policy/policy-development
2. SIG guidelines
– Many operational instructions, but not part of policies
– http://www.apnic.net/community/sigs/sig-guidelines
3. SIG administration slides
– BCP by current chairs
– http://conference.apnic.net/38/policy
2

3. PDP
• Sec. 1 Introduction
– Policies are developed by the membership and the broader Internet
community through a bottom-up process of consultation and
consensus.
– Anyone may attend the meetings and participate in discussions and
the decision making.
• Sec. 4 Proposal process
– Step 2 Consensus at the OPM
No descriptions about
remote participants
• Consensus is defined as "general agreement" as observed by the
Chair of the meeting.
3
Correct, but is it
enough as PDP?

4. PDP (Cont.)
• Sec. 4 Proposal process (Cont.)
– Step 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 below in Step 5.
• 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
Good descriptions,
but it is for Last Call

5. SIG guidelines
5
It doesn’t say
“everyone consents to the
content of the proposals”
• Sec. 1.7 Consensus
– Consensus is achieved when everyone consents to the decision of
the group. The decision may not be everyone's first preference, but is
acceptable to all participants.

6. SIG guidelines (Cont.)
6
• Appendix 5.1 Basic steps in the consensus decision making
process
– The 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 SIG
session of the APNIC Open Policy Meeting.
– 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:
1. Those for the proposal
2. Those against the proposal (or individual elements of the
proposal)
3. Those who have no opinion on the proposal
– The show of hands is not a vote. It is a way of broadly gauging
opinion. Does it cover
e-consensus?

7. SIG guidelines (Cont.)
7
• Appendix 5.1 Basic steps in the consensus decision making
process
– If there are objections, the Chair can ask the dissenters to decide if their
objections are:
• 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.
• 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.

8. “Consensus Decision Making”
in SIG administration slides
• Consensus = “general agreement” taking into consideration
comments on the mailing list and at the meeting.
• Show of hands is a way of “broadly gauging opinion”
• Comments via Remote Participation are welcome
• Example definitions from Tao of IETF:
– a very large majority of those who care must agree
– strongly held objections must be debated until most people are
satisfied that these objections are wrong
It is only descriptions
about remote participants
Is it do-able in our
discussion?

9. “Remember”
in SIG administration slides
• Minor Objections
– some problems may occur for some members of the group
• Major Objections
– major problems will occur for parts of the community
• Participants should “work together” to resolve

10. Discussion points
1. Is current descriptions in PDP enough or not? Do we need
to capture some descriptions from SIG guidelines and/or
SIG administration slide?
2. Is there any better descriptions about major/minor
objections?
3. Which is appropriate level for describing major/minor
objections. Currently, it is an appendix of SIG guideline.
4. Don’t we need to describe remote participants?
5. Do we need to add descriptions about e-consensus if we
will use it?
6. Is there any other points from the Community?
10

11. 11