Presentation by Jordi Palet at APNIC 46 on Thursday, 13 September 2018.

1. PDP Update
Prop-126 v002
Jordi Palet
(jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
1

2. Problem Statement (1)
• With its requirement of face-to-face participation at the OPM,
the current PDP might – at least partially – be the cause of the
low levels of community participation in the process by using
the policy mailing list.
• This proposal would allow an increased participation, by
considering also the comments in the list for the consensus
determination. So, consensus would be determined balancing
the mailing list and the forum, and would therefore increase
community participation.
2

3. Problem Statement (2)
• Further, policy proposals are meant for the community as a whole, and not
only APNIC members, so this proposal suggest removing the actual
“double” consensus required in both groups.
• Moreover, requiring 4 weeks in advance to the OPM, seems unnecessary as
the consensus determination can be done in two stages (SIG meeting and
list), so the proposal looks for just 1 week in advance to the SIG responsible
for that proposal.
• Finally, it completes the PDP by adding a simple mechanism for solving
disagreements during an appeals phase and an improved definition of
‘consensus’.
3

4. Objective of Policy Change
•To allow that consensus is determined also looking
at the opinions of community members that are
not able to travel to the meetings, adjust the time
required before the relevant SIG to submit the
proposals, not requiring “double” consensus with
the APNIC members and facilitating a simple
method for appeals.
4

5. Situation in Other Regions
•The PDP is different in the different RIRs. This
proposal is similar to the RIPE PDP, possibly the
region with the broadest participation in its
policy proposal discussions, although there are
certain differences such as the mandatory use
of the mailing list and the meeting, which is
more similar to the PDP at ARIN (another region
with broad community participation). LACNIC
has recently adopted a similar policy proposal
with the same aims. 5

6. Proposed Policy Solution (1)
Step 1 Discussion before the OPM
A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the
SIG mailing list and to the SIG Chair one week
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. If the one-week 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.
Step 1 Discussion before the OPM
A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the
SIG mailing list and to the SIG Chair 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. If the four-week 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.

7. Proposed Policy Solution (2)
Step 2 Consensus at the OPM
Consensus is defined as “general agreement” as
observed by the Chairs. Consensus is determined in
both, the SIG session and the SIG mailing list. If
there is no consensus on a proposal, the SIG (either
on the mailing list or at a future OPM) will discuss
whether to amend the proposal or to withdraw it.
Step 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 Member 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.

8. Proposed Policy Solution (3)
Step 3 Discussion after the OPM
Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM
and the AMM will be circulated on the appropriate
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 SIG Chair.
Step 3 Discussion after the OPM
Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM
and the AMM will be circulated on the appropriate
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 SIG Chair.

9. Proposed Policy Solution (4)
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.
No change!

10. Proposed Policy Solution (5)
Step 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.
No change!

11. Proposed Policy Solution (6)
Appeals process
In case of disagreement during the process, any
member of the community must initially bring the
matter to the mailing list for consideration by the
Chairs.
Alternately, if any member considers that the Chairs
have violated the process or erred in their
judgement, they may appeal their decision through
the EC, which must decide the matter within a
period of four weeks.
NEW

12. Advantages of the Proposal
•Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making
sure to match the real situation in the market.
12

13. Disadvantages of the Proposal
•None foreseen.
13

14. Impact on Resource Holders
•None.
14

15. References
•Links to RIPE policy amended and new policy
proposal submitted.
15