Hi,
This all seems quite disappointing, when it should have been quite
positive. SIG-Policy was 'that close' it seems, and I'd like to dig into
how such a change is possible. Being candid, I am not adequately versed
in the nuances of what makes the EC's last-minute decision something
permissible, yet don't feel like what's taken place this week re:
prop-155 demonstrates a properly functional process.
My understanding of what's happened up to here:
/prop-155 reached consensus and was endorsed, so the 'work is done'
there if not then amended by APNIC EC as they have done - which triggers
a need/case for the endorsement to become somewhat null and void, and
for discussions to recommence (ie. at least partially restart the
process), in the hope a similar change is not again done at the 11th
hour by the EC alone. This seems quite a failure of the policy
development process./
Some multi-pronged queries/perspectives around this:
1. Speaking of policy, in this case how does the EC's /"The EC has also
decided to waive..."/ fit in? I see no ground for it in Step 5[1]. Can
this be done pre-/post-endorsement? It feels like going behind the backs
of SIG-Policy members despite the intentions likely being positive
within APNIC's EC.
2. If there is technically no valid route to the amendment they've
applied after the fact (in the way it's been done), how can that be
handled except/in-addition-to returning it to the list for further
discussions?
3. Are there other cases where the EC has made a change like this at
such a stage? To that end, is there a trend? Should there not be safety
nets which means approved-prop=approved-prop? It seems very strange that
a presumably-well-defined process can become unstuck in this way, as it
undermines a lot of the time and effort invested by SIG members and the
community more broadly.
4. By-law reforms have been completed thanks to major community efforts
- the instigator was told it would be impossible but alas no. One of the
key provisions is to ensure that APNIC is a well-protected entity. Fee
waiving does not seem to align with a NIC's goals. Why was it done here?
To encourage IPv6? Who in particular agreed together within the EC/APNIC
to make the 11th hour change, and based on what?
5. Do we have enough of a divide between the SIG/s and the EC, as
implied by Aftab, to invite further direct discussions to this end,
attempting to get the EC on the same page more generally? Shorter
version: Should this example lead to procedural/policy changes to
prevent a recurrence?
6. With the APNIC EC members sworn into confidentiality via formal NDA,
not permitted to record conversations[2], and unable to share any EC
information without express permission, it seems there is somewhat of a
silo which /should/ be okay if processes are strongly & clearly defined.
Are members of this SIG comfortable with the existing structure,
communication and transparency? If not, what would you change and why?
7. Reviewing at high-level the Policy Development Process
(APNIC-111-v003), it seems there is insufficient clarity and explanation
within, most notably while there appears to be no provision for the
last-minute EC-authored changes, there is similarly no specific
restriction otherwise either. Does the SIG view this as an opportunity
to separately move to strengthen this document, to eliminate any gaps
which could be mis-used?
Is the SIG comfortable this is a once-off? The EC is obviously
comfortable enough with their last-minute amendments per their wording
below which implies that prop-155 as-amended will steam ahead.
SIG-Policy has said no to that, however at a glance this entire case
seems improper and not explicitly OK. However, I lack sufficient
knowledge and history in this space to make concrete statements, hence
my broad requests for clarity, and long-winded email which attempts to
decipher what appears to be the elephant in the room.
/"The EC has also decided to waive the fees on IPv6 PI assignments under
this policy..."/
/"The Secretariat will begin the implementation process and inform the
community as soon as it is completed."/
Which seems to reinforce the need for more oversight/policy in these
edge cases, as otherwise it seems the processes for APNIC SIGs may be
undermined in cases where the EC deems it appropriate, even where the
clearly-defined process has not led to the same determinations. Just
like with the by-law reforms, it seems this eventuality has highlighted
some potentially glaring issues that should be tightened up to avoid a
repeat?
At the moment, it seems there are 8 people[3] on the Executive Council,
and I'd imagine a change like this requires majority. So hopefully more
insights can be shared not just into the questions posed, but also more
generally into how the SIGs can expect the EC to interact with them into
the future - with a view towards more transparency & accountability, and
sharing any other internal plans which they aim to stitch into props.
Appreciate your time in clarifying on the above. Please note some of the
numbered points contain multiple questions. I may be off-base with some
or all of this, and appreciate in advance clarification where I'm
unaware of other realities, etc - always happy to learn, be wrong, etc.
Thank you,
Luke Thompson
[1]
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-development/development-process/#4
[2]
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/organization/structure/apnic-executive-council/ec-roles-and-obligations/
[3]
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/organization/structure/apnic-executive-council/ec-members/
On 13/12/2023 5:45 pm, Anupam Agrawal wrote:
I echo Aftab's position. As the endorsement is with a rider which is
different from the consensus arrived at OPM/AGM, then as per the APNIC
111 (APNIC Policy Development Process), Section 4, Step 5, EC can
refer the proposal back to Policy SIG for discussions.
Regards
Anupam Agrawal
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 5:59 AM Aftab Siddiqui
<aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
I urge the EC to revisit the decision on the fee waiver. The
policy's intent was to promote the uptake of PI IPv6 by balancing
incentivization with the recovery of costs for services provided
to resource holders. A 12-month fee waiver, unfortunately fails
horribly to meet this purpose and contradicts APNIC's fundamental
goal of accelerating IPv6 adoption. To truly drive the shift
towards IPv6, we must stop valuing it as if it were IPv4 - "a
costly asset" - and instead, support its adoption through more
favorable policies. The policy which the community overwhelmingly
supported but EC didn't get the essence of it.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 10:29, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi
<su...@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues
The APNIC Executive Council endorsed the proposal, prop-155:
IPv6 PI Assignment for Associate Members, at its meeting on
26-28 November 2023.
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-155/
The EC has also decided to waive the fees on IPv6 PI
assignments under this policy for a period of 12 months from
the date of delegation. After the 12 month period expires, the
resources will become chargeable.
Next steps
----------
The Secretariat will begin the implementation process and
inform the community as soon as it is completed.
Regards,
Sunny
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7
3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7
3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD |
http://www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy -https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email tosig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
