Hi Luke, See comments in-line.
> 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. > prop-155 reached consensus and was endorsed, so the 'work is done' there if > not then amended by APNIC EC as they have done I wouldn't consider their decision on fees as a last-minute decision, as it's within their powers. The determination of fees charged is beyond the scope of the Policy SIG, which was acknowledged by Aftab and Simon in the policy proposal that they had submitted. As members of the Policy SIG, we can only make recommendations as to how the EC should decide, it's on them to make the final decision regarding fees. > 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. I agree that the decision to charge the fees they have with the exception of the discount renders this policy (in my view) redundant. In my view the policy doesn't need to come back to the list for further discussion as it sought consensus twice (at the OPM and then the AMM) which demonstrated support from the community, the EC need to make a decision regarding a permanent reduction in fees for IPv6 PI space. > 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. Fees for services provided and resources assigned/allocated is outside the scope of the Policy SIG, and in turn, not included as part of the PDP. > 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? They did not amend the policy. Again, fees are beyond the scope of the Policy SIG and PDP. > Are there other cases where the EC has made a change like this at such a > stage? To my knowledge, no. > To that end, is there a trend? Again, no. > Should there not be safety nets which means approved-prop=approved-prop? The policy was not amended, and endorsed as-is in line with what is in-scope of the Policy SIG and PDP. > 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. Again, the in-scope content of the policy was endorsed as written. While yes, the decision to only issue an initial fee-waiver for the first 12 months does make this policy redundant, it is within the scope of the policy process. > 4. By-law reforms have been completed thanks to major community efforts - the > instigator was told it would be impossible but alas no. Karl deserves to never have to pay for another drink again, due to his significant involvement in advocating to get this across the line :) > 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? I am of the view that the fee waiver is in-line with APNIC's Vision, Mission and Objectives (https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/organization/vision-mission-objectives/) in attempting to promote the active development and usage of IPv6 Address Space. This wasn't an 11th-hour change, rather it was made at the correct time of implementing a policy. > 5. Do we have enough of a divide between the SIG/s and the EC, as implied by > Aftab I don't see this in Aftab's response. > to invite further direct discussions to this end, attempting to get the EC on > the same page more generally? I do believe that some form of fee needs to be charged as APNIC do incur costs with providing services. Perhaps a solution would be to consult with the community regarding new fee implementation prior to making a decision? > Shorter version: Should this example lead to procedural/policy changes to > prevent a recurrence? Potentially this would require a rework of the PDP, in order for the EC to hold a discussion with the author so they can ensure they understand it as written. > 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? I am comfortable with the way the EC operates and the need for NDAs, as they would almost definitely have access to information which should not be made public. > 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? The EC did not make any last-minute changes to the policy proposal. Further, there is no such thing as a "last-minute" or "11th hour" change, as the EC has the ability to make changes to policy at any time and any point for any reason. Having said this, the EC are well-trusted and highly regarded members of our community, and perhaps we should invite them to help us understand why they have made the decision they have. > Is the SIG comfortable this is a once-off? Again, not a last-minute change so not really a one-off. > The EC is obviously comfortable enough with their last-minute amendments per > their wording Not a last-minute amendment, and they didn't state it as such. > 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. Again, the proposal was not amended. A few different Policy SIG members have stated they wish the EC to review their decision regarding fees. Their decision (while it makes this policy redundant) is in-line with current policies and powers as the EC. > 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. Hopefully I've clarified things, and I encourage anyone to correct me if I am indeed not correct. > "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? Although it appears there has been a misunderstanding as to the intent of this policy, the EC have acted within the bounds of their duties in determining the fee structure for IPv6 PI space. > 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. This is definitely something the community could discuss, and it's actually a good idea. Having said this, the determination of fees would be somewhat be dependent on the knowledge of APNIC's budget so as to not set fees too low, or too high. This might be a discussion better suited for APNIC-talk as opposed to the Policy SIG list. > 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. Happy to help provide info where and when I can, you (or anyone else) are welcome to contact me either on or off-list. > > Thank you, > Luke Thompson Regards, Christopher Hawker _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
