1 / 12

A proposal for an APNIC document editorial policy (prop-002-v001)

A proposal for an APNIC document editorial policy (prop-002-v001). Address Policy SIG APNIC 16, Seoul, Korea 21 August 2003. Introduction. This proposal is intended to work with the policy development process proposed by Anne Lord and Randy Bush.

mlopez
Télécharger la présentation

A proposal for an APNIC document editorial policy (prop-002-v001)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A proposal for an APNIC document editorial policy(prop-002-v001) Address Policy SIG APNIC 16, Seoul, Korea 21 August 2003

  2. Introduction • This proposal is intended to work with the policy development process proposed by Anne Lord and Randy Bush. • http://www.apnic.net/meetings/16/programme/sigs/docs/policy/addpol-prop-apnic-policy-process.txt

  3. Introduction • This proposal is about the editorial process to implement consensus decisions • This proposal suggests a simpler procedure for writing, amending, and publishing documents • The proposed procedure takes full account of consensus decisions reached through policy development process

  4. Background • Current document review policy • apnic-083 “APNIC Document review policies and procedures” • Describes a system of calls for comments • Categorises nature and importance of proposed reviews • Review category determines number and length of calls for comments

  5. Problem • Current review policy was developed when the role of SIGs was less clear • It does not adequately recognise the role that SIGs and AMM have in making decisions • Current process is complex and time consuming • Categorising reviews is no longer necessary once a decision has reached consensus in the SIG AMM process

  6. Position in other RIRs • ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE NCC • The editorial process is contained within the policy development process • So, why separate the processes in APNIC? • The range and diversity of languages is an issue • A separate editorial process will help ensure consistent documentation

  7. Proposal details (1) • Include formal recognition of the policy development process • Consensus decisions flowing from SIGs and AMM • Remove categories of review • Not necessary for decisions made by SIG-AMM process

  8. Proposal details (2) • New editorial policy should describe a simple process to implement consensus decisions: • Secretariat releases draft reflecting SIG-AMM decision • Single call for public review • Intended to ensure draft properly represents decision • One month for editorial comments • Community can request additional reviews on basis that draft does not properly reflect the consensus from the relevant meeting

  9. Proposal details (3) • If a document is required to implement an emergency decision made by the Executive Council between Member Meetings, that document must be reviewed at the next Open Policy Meeting.

  10. Implementation • It is proposed to implement this policy as soon as possible so that the editorial process may be applied to any other consensus items arising from this meeting.

  11. Questions

  12. References • Current document review policy • http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/doc-review-policy.html • Proposal • http://www.apnic.net/meetings/16/programme/sigs/docs/policy/addpol-prop-apnic-doc-review-v4.txt

More Related