This document reviews policy development processes in the Asia Pacific region by comparing APNIC's process to those of other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). APNIC follows a bottom-up, consensus-based model where community members propose policies through Special Interest Groups (SIGs) and mailing lists, discuss them at open meetings, and seek consensus endorsement at Member Meetings before implementation. While this process is open and transparent, it can result in repeated discussions between SIGs and Member Meetings. Other RIRs like ARIN and LACNIC empower working groups to make consensus decisions, while RIPE NCC uses informal ratification of working group decisions. Periodic review is needed to ensure APNIC's dynamic policy process meets the

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

2. Overview
• Motivation & Problem
• Policy Development Principles
• Process Elements
• Process Flowchart
• Other RIRs
• Current Needs Met?

3. 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

4. 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?

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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
YES
NO
NO

10. 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

11. 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?

12. Other RIRs - ARIN

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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
YES
NO
NO