Presentation by Jordi Palet at APRICOT 2019 on Wednesday, 27 February 2019.

1. PDP Update
Prop-126 v003
APNIC47 – Daejeon – South Korea
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 (formally)
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 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.
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 Determination
Consensus is defined as “rough consensus” as
observed by the Chairs.
Consensus is determined in both, the SIG
session and the SIG mailing list, in a maximum
of two weeks after the OPM.
If there is no consensus on a proposal, the
authors can decide to withdraw it.
Otherwise, the proposal will expire in six
months, unless a new version is provided,
following the discussions with the community.
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: Last-Call
Proposals that have reached consensus will be circulated
on the appropriate SIG mailing list during four weeks.
The purpose of the “last-call” is to provide the
community with a brief and final opportunity to
comment on the proposal, especially those who didn’t
earlier.
Consequently, during this period editorial comments
may be submitted and, exceptionally, objections if any
aspect is discovered that was not considered in the
discussion prior to determining consensus.
Any new objections must also be substantiated and
must therefore not be based on opinions lacking a
technical justification.
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
In a maximum of one week, after the end of the “last-call”,
the Chairs will confirm whether consensus is maintained
and the process continues as outlined below in Step 5.
If it is observed that there have been “new substantial
objections” raised to the proposed policy, consensus is not
confirmed and the proposal will not be implemented.
The authors can decide to withdraw it, or provide a new
version, following the discussions with the community. The
proposal will expire in six months, unless a new version is
provided.
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.

10. Proposed Policy Solution (5)
Step 5 Endorsement from the EC (no changes)
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.
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.

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. Proposed Policy Solution (7)
Definition of “Rough Consensus”
Achieving “rough consensus” does not mean that proposals are voted for and against, nor that the number of “yes's”,
“no's” and “abstentions” – or even participants – are counted, but that the proposal has been discussed not only by its
author(s) but also by other members of the community, regardless of their number, and that, after a period of discussion,
all critical technical objections have been resolved.
In general, this might coincide with a majority of members of the community in favor of the proposal, and with those
who are against the proposal basing their objections on technical reasons as opposed to “subjective” reasons. In other
words, low participation or participants who disagree for reasons that are not openly explained should not be considered
a lack of consensus.
Objections should not be measured by their number, but instead by their nature and quality within the context of a given
proposal. For example, a member of the community whose opinion is against a proposal might receive many “emails”
(virtual or real) in their support, yet the chairs might consider that the opinion has already been addressed and
technically refuted during the debate; in this case, the chairs would ignore those expressions of support against the
proposal.
For information purposes, the definition of “consensus” used by the RIRs and the IETF is actually that of “rough
consensus”, which allows better clarifying the goal in this context, given that “consensus” (Latin for agreement) might be
interpreted as “agreed by al”’ (unanimity). More specifically, RFC7282, explains that “Rough consensus is achieved when
all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated”.
Consequently, the use of “consensus” in the PDP, must be interpreted as “rough consensus”.
NEW

13. Actual vs Proposed “flow”
13
• Consensus:
1. SIG
2. AMM
3. Final Call
4. EC
5. Possible
APNIC
members
vote
Proposal
OPM SIG
Policy Proposal
Discussion
>= 4 weeks
Chairs Determine
Consensus
<= 2 weeks
Last-Call
= 4 weeks
Chairs Confirm
Consensus
<= 1 week
EC
Endorsement
• Consensus:
1. SIG
2. Final Call
3. EC
4. Possible
APNIC
members
vote

14. Advantages of the Proposal
•Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making
sure to match the real situation in the market.
14

15. Disadvantages of the Proposal
•None foreseen.
15

16. Impact on Resource Holders
•None.
16

17. References
•http://www.lacnic.net/679/2/lacnic/policy-
development-process
•https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710
17