APNIC 29 APRICOT 2010 Banner

APNIC Policy Development Process BoF

It has been almost seven years since the APNIC community last made significant changes to its Policy Development Process (PDP).

In the intervening years, there have been continuous improvements made to how the PDP is carried out. For example, webcast and chat facilities have been added to allow remote participants to engage in policy discussions at APNIC meetings. Now that the current PDP has been in place for a few years, it is time to see how well the PDP is meeting the community's needs, and if there are areas that could be improved, how those improvements could be made.

Draft agenda
Overview of history of APNIC's PDP development
Discuss parts of the current PDP that work well
Identify part of the current PDP that could be improved [more]
Workshop potential ways to improve PDP

A history of APNIC's Policy Development Process (PDP)

In APNIC's early days, all policy proposals were presented and decided apon at APNIC meetings. There was no time for the community to consider and discuss the merits of a proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. There was no opportunity for community members who had not been able to attend an APNIC meeting to raise objections to a proposal after a meeting.

In 2003, the community agreed that an improved process was needed and at APNIC 16, reached consensus on the current PDP. Under the current PDP:

Proposals must be posted to the SIG mailing list at least four weeks before discussion at an APNIC meeting.
This procedure was adopted to give the community enough time to read proposals and discuss the proposals on the mailing list. This procedure also gives proposal authors the opportunity to amend their proposals based on community feedback before the meeting.
Proposals are presented for consensus at the SIG session and at the APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).
This procedure was adopted at a time when APNIC held parallel sessions. Presenting the proposal for consensus at the AMM gave members of the community who had not been at a SIG session in which a proposal had been discussed to still have input into that proposal.
Proposals are returned to the SIG mailing list for a final eight- week comment period.
This procedure was adopted to give community members who were unable to attend an APNIC meeting to still have a say on the proposals that were presented at the meeting.
Proposals that have reached consensus on the mailing list and at the meeting are endorsed by the APNIC Executive Council (EC).