SM,
This document looks good, and I believe it captures all of the
essentials of an RIR PDP. A few minor comments:
It may be worthwhile under 5.1 to explicitly mention that draft policy
documents are also posted to the RPD list in addition to being posted on
the website. Something like "During the development of a policy, draft
versions of the document are made available for review and comment by
publishing them on the AfriNIC website and posting them to the Resource
Policy Discussion mailing list." This follows existing practice, but I
believe it's important to require mailing list posting to ensure that
the community is aware of proposed drafts, without having to closely
monitor the website.
Your Incentive section states that, under the current PDP, "The steps
used to determine consensus leads to a situation where comments provided
during online discussions do not bear the same weight as those made
during the public policy meeting." However, as I read 5.2-5.4, the new
PDP only bases consensus on feedback received during the PPM and during
last call, and ignores comments made on the RPD list prior to the PPM.
If that is how you (and more importantly, the AfriNIC community) want it
to work, that's fine, but my experience with the PDP in the ARIN region
is that it's important to also consider mailing list comments in
determining whether to send a proposal to last call. The last call
period can then be used to raise any remaining objections that were not
adequately addressed on the mailing list discussion or at the PPM.
In section 7, I think you meant "waiving" instead of "waving".
-Scott
On Wed 5/12/2010 1:34 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Hello,
This is version 3 of the policy proposal for the Policy Development
Process. I listed the changes in Appendix B to facilitate the
discussion. In the event the proposal is approved, I would like to
remove that appendix from the final version if the PDP-MG agrees to that.
The major changes to this version have been discussed on this mailing
list. Please comment on the document. Please email me if any
proposed change is missing or the change is incorrectly worded in the
document.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Your Name: S. Moonesamy
Your Organisation:
Policy Affected: AFPUB-2008-GEN-001
Date: 11 May, 2010
Proposal: Policy Development Process in the AfriNIC service region
Incentive:
The initial policy development process (AFPUB-2004-GEN-001) used by
AfriNIC was meant to be a transitional process. A revised policy was
specified once AfriNIC was well established. The existing policy
(AFPUB-2008-GEN-001) does not specify what should be done in the event
that the PDP-MG cannot attend an public policy meeting or if a person
disagrees with an action taken by the PDP-MG.
The lack of information affects the transparency of the policy
development process. It has a negative impact on the decision-making
process as issues that have been discussed and resolved on the mailing
list are reopened during the public policy meeting because the
community is not aware of the mailing list discussions. There is also
a lack of documentation about the procedures used, and the approval
and implementation of a policy.
The steps used to determine consensus leads to a situation where
comments provided during online discussions do not bear the same
weight as those made during the public policy meeting.
There is also a lack of awareness and a lack of understanding of the
principles upon which the policy development process are based.
Although the existing policy does not explicitly mention the
principles, it follows the same principles mentioned in this document.
It is proposed to revise the existing policy so that the principles
and procedures are documented. This document adds procedures to the
policy development process to deal with disputes and the recall of the
Chair. It also adds some flexibility to vary the process in the case
of an emergency.
1. Introduction
This document describes the AfriNIC Policy Development Process (PDP).
The policies are documented AfriNIC community decisions that directly
determine the rules by which AfriNIC manages and administers Internet
number resources.
The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair,
open and objective and are intended to:
(i) provide ample opportunity for participation and comment by all
interested parties;
(ii) establish widespread Internet community consensus.
These procedures adopt generally accepted practices and provide the
flexibility to adapt to a variety of circumstances that can occur in a
process. This document obsoletes AFPUB-2008-GEN-001.
2. Scope
Internet number resource policies are distinctly separate from AfriNIC
general business practices and procedures. General business practices
and procedures are not within the purview of the Policy Development
Process.
3. Policy Development Principles
All policies are developed by the Internet community following three
principles: openness, transparency and fairness. The Internet
community initiates and discusses the proposals. If consensus is
reached on the draft policy, it is recommended to the AfriNIC Board of
Directors for adoption as a policy.
3.1 Openness
All policies are developed in an open forum in which anyone may
participate. There are no qualifications for participation.
3.2 Transparency
All aspects of the Policy Development Process are documented and
publicly available via the AfriNIC website. The discussions are
publicly archived. All procedures that are developed to implement the
policy are documented by AfriNIC and are publicly available.
3.3 Fairness
The policies are to ensure fair distribution of resources and
facilitating the operation of the Internet.
Actions are taken within a reasonable period of time.
4. Policy Development Working Group
The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses about the
proposals. Anyone may participate via the Internet or in person.
The work is carried out through the Resource Policy Discussion mailing
list (RPD) and the Public Policy Meeting (PPM).
The Policy Development Working Group has two or more Chairs to perform
the administrative functions of the group. The Working Group Chairs
will be chosen by the AfriNIC community during the Public Policy
Meeting for a two-year term. The term ends during the first Public
Policy Meeting meeting corresponding to the end of the term for which
they were appointed. At the time this policy is adopted, one of the
Working Group Chairs will be appointed for a one-year term.
If the Working Group Chair is unable to serve his or her full term,
the Working Group may select a replacement to serve the remainder of
the term. If the Working Group Chairs are unable to attend the Public
Policy Meeting, the Working Group shall nominate a Chair for the session.
5. Policy Development Process
Policy proposals can be submitted to the Resource Policy Discussion
mailing list. AfriNIC will provide administrative support and assist
the author(s) in drafting the proposal, if requested. AfriNIC shall
also provide relevant facts and statistics if requested during the
discussion.
5.1 Draft Policy
During the development of a policy, draft versions of the document are
made available for review and comment by publishing them on the
AfriNIC website. The document shall include the information mentioned
in Appendix A. Each draft policy is assigned a unique identifier by
AfriNIC. The website shall also contain the version history and the
status of all proposals.
The draft policy shall be available for review for at least four weeks
before the next Public Policy Meeting. The author(s) shall make the
necessary changes to the draft policy according to the feedback
received. The Working Group Chair(s) may request AfriNIC to provide
an analysis, technical, financial, legal or other, of the impact of
the draft policy.
A draft policy expires after one calendar year unless it is approved
by the AfriNIC Board of Directors as a policy. The timeout period is
restarted when the draft policy is replaced by a more recent version
of the proposal. A draft policy can be withdrawn by the author(s) by
sending a notification to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list.
5.2 Public Policy Meeting
The draft policy is placed on the agenda of the next open public
policy meeting. The agenda of the meeting shall be announced on the
Resource Policy Discussion mailing list at least two weeks prior to
the meeting. No change can be made to a draft policy within one week
of the meeting. This is so that a stable version of the draft policy
can be considered at the meeting. The Chair(s) determines whether
rough consensus has been achieved during the Public Policy Meeting.
The Chair(s) shall publish the minutes of proceedings of the Public
Policy Meeting not later than three weeks after the meeting.
5.3 Last Call
A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group
Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy Discussion
mailing list. The Last Call period shall be at least two weeks. The
Working Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback received during the
Public Policy Meeting and during this period and decide whether
consensus has been achieved.
5.4 Approval
The Working Group Chair(s) shall recommend the draft policy to the
AfriNIC Board of Directors for approval if it has the consensus of the
Policy Development Working Group. The recommendation shall include a
report of the discussions of the draft policy and feedback from the
Last Call. The draft policy shall be ratified by the AfriNIC Board of
Directors.
5.5 Implementation
The adoption and implementation date of the policy is announced on the
Resource Policy Discussion mailing list. The implementation date
should be less than six months after the end of the Last Call unless a
waiver is requested.
6. Conflict Resolution
A person who disagrees with the actions taken by the Chair(s) shall
discuss the matter with the Working Group Chair(s) or with the Working
Group. If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, the person
may file an appeal with an Appeal Committee appointed by the AfriNIC
Board of Directors. An appeal can only be filed if it is supported by
three persons from the Working Group who have participated in the
discussions.
The appeal must be submitted within two weeks of the public knowledge
of the decision. The Appeal Committee shall issue a report on its
review of the complaint to the Working Group. The Appeal Committee
may direct that the Chair(s) decision be annulled if the Policy
Development Process has not been followed.
Anyone who has attended at least two of the last ten AfriNIC meetings
may request the recall of a Working Group Chair at any time, upon
written request with justification to the AfriNIC Board of
Directors. The AfriNIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall
committee, excluding the person requesting the recall and the Working
Group Chairs. The recall committee shall investigate the
circumstances of the justification for the recall and determine the
outcome.
7. Varying the Process
The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an
emergency. Variance may be requested by the Working Group Chair or
the AfriNIC Board of Directors and is for use when a one-time waving
of some provision of this document is required. There must be an
explanation about why the variance is needed. The review period,
including the Last Call, shall not be less than four weeks. If the
policy is adopted, it must be presented at the next Public Policy
Meeting for reconsideration.
8. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge that some text and procedures in
this document have been adapted from RFC 2606. Thanks to Adiel
Apklogan and Alain Aina for their insight. The author only documented
the process; full credit belongs to the AfriNIC community.
Appendix A: Draft Policy Template
The Draft Policy shall include:
1. Unique identifier (assigned by AfriNIC)
2. Draft Policy Name
3. Author(s)
(a) Name
(b) Email address
(c) Affiliation, if applicable
4. Draft Policy Version
5. Submission Date
6. Changes to existing policies (updates, obsoletes), if applicable
7. Summary of proposal
8. Proposal
9. List of changes between previous versions of the draft, if applicable
Appendix B: Changes
Section 4 changed so that replacement of a Chair is done by Working
Group instead of Board of Directors
Section 4 clarifies that Chair is selected by the AfriNIC community
Section 5.4 changed so that Board of Directors can only approve a policy
Appeal committee in Section 6 handled by a future appeal body set up
by AfriNIC
Added requirements for appeal in Section 6
Recall committee in Section 6 appointed by Board of Directors
Board of Directors can request variance
Qualified the word community throughout the proposal
Section 3 clarifies that policies are developed by the Internet community
OPM changed to PPM
Added Implementation sub-section
Added Acknowledgements section
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
