HTTP/2 200 date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:16:32 GMT content-type: text/plain content-length: 1866 x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block referrer-policy: no-referrer, same-origin, strict-origin-when-cross-origin x-frame-options: SAMEORIGIN x-content-type-options: nosniff last-modified: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 00:48:36 GMT etag: "1347-5523160e44100-gzip" cache-control: max-age=3600, public expires: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 17:16:32 GMT vary: Accept-Encoding content-encoding: gzip x-envoy-upstream-service-time: 5 strict-transport-security: max-age=15552000; preload cf-cache-status: MISS accept-ranges: bytes content-security-policy: frame-ancestors 'self' https://rex.apnic.net https://rex.stg.xyz.apnic.net server: cloudflare cf-ray: 95f25330ca3a20c5-BLR ----------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-108-v002: Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposers: Dean Pemberton Izumi Okutani 1. Introduction ---------------- At APNIC 35 in Singapore, Policy-SIG co-chair Masato Yamanishi delivered a presentation [PSIG35-1] outlining a number of inconsistencies or areas of sub-optimisation within the documentation governing the current APNIC Policy Development Process. This policy proposal outlines one part of the documentation that are inconsistent or do not match with the reality of how the process is implemented. It also describes the problem and seeks to offer ways to change the required documentation to optimise the APNIC PDP in these areas in collaboration with the community. 2. Problem Statement --------------------- Yamanishi-san highlighted a number of inconsistencies in his presentation. This proposal seeks to address one of these issues. The relevant steps in the PDP [APNICPDP-1] to be addressed in this proposal are presented below for reference purposes: - Step 3 Discussion after the OPM Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM will be circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing list for a period of eight weeks. This is known as the "comment period". . The length of the required comment period for successful policy proposals after the AMM --------------------------------------------------------------- As above Section 4 of APNIC PDP document requires that “Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM will be circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing list for a period of eight weeks. This is known as the "comment period". In practice, once a proposal has been through discussion on the mailing list, been presented an OPM for further discussion, and successfully demonstrated consensus of the community, there are little or no comments generated within the eight week subsequent comment period. Most concerns are raised within two weeks after the call for final comments. It should also be noted that there has not been a case where a new opinion raised more than four weeks after the call for final comments. Chairs should be able to judge whether there are substantial concerns for the consensus within a shorter period. Eight weeks is a significant amount of time to allow for additional comments after a policy proposal has gained consensus at the OPM. It is in fact longer than the entire discussion period under which the proposal was presented. At present all the 8 week comment period serves to do is significantly delay the implementation of policy which been demonstrated to have the consensus of the community. 3. Objective of Policy Change --------------------------- To optimise and/or disambiguate procedures carried out under the current APNIC PDP. 4. Proposed Policy Solution --------------------------- This section will propose a change which seeks to resolve the problem outlined above. The length of the required comment period for successful policy proposals after the AMM --------------------------------------------------------------- In order to allow for the shortening of this period, Step 3 of the PDP should be replaced with: --------[APNICPDP-1]-------- Proposals that have reached consensus at the OPM and the AMM will be circulated on the appropriate SIG mailing list for a period, the duration of which will not be shorter than four weeks but no 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 Chair. This is known as the "comment period". --------[APNICPDP-1]-------- 5. Pros/Cons ------------- Advantages: The changes outlined above will ensure that the APNIC PDP is kept inline with best current practice of the operation of the SIGs Disadvantages: None at present 6. Impact on APNIC ------------------- These changes will ensure that the development of policy within APNIC continues to occur in a standardised, consistent framework. 7. References ------------------ [APNICPDP-1] APNIC policy development process - 19 February 2004 Accessed from https://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/policy-development.txt [PSIG35-1] Yamanishi, M., “APNIC35 Policy-SIG Informational: Questions for Clarification in the APNIC PDP”, APNIC 35, Singapore, 28 February 2013. Accessed from https://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/58992/ambiguouts -points-in-pdp-2013027_1361972669.pdf