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
