j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
"The announced chair's final decision contains serious error and it should be fixed."
This is an interesting discussion, however, there is no "serious error" as you put it.
For a sense of perspective, I would urge everyone to re-read the APNIC policy development process at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/policy-development.html#Step-4
In particular, step 4 answers the very question being thrown around in this thread. Ie. When is consensus confirmed?
Please read the following carefully, as it is lifted from the APNIC policy development process linked to above:
"Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial objections raised during the "comment period". When the "comment period" has expired, the appropriate SIG Chair (and Co-chairs) will decide whether the discussions on the mailing list represent continued consensus....... If it is observed that there have been "substantial objections" raised to the proposed policy, consensus is not confirmed and the proposal will not be implemented."
According to the APNIC policy development process, it doesn't matter if there was consensus at any previous stage of the process, substantial objections in the final comment period must lead to a decision by the SIG Chair that there is no consensus.
Substantial objections HAVE been raised, nobody can deny this.
As per the documented policy development process, Izumi-san has quite rightly declared that consensus has not been reached, and this policy will not proceed in its current form.
As it stands, according to APNIC policy, this proposal cannot proceed and should not be considered by the EC, as we cannot proceed to step 5 in the policy development process.
If you disagree, then you should propose a change to the policy development process at the next APNIC meeting.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
I can agree with some of you points, but not all.
I agree with making modification on the policy development process, and some of the points above.
However, the two mistakes I pointed out still needs to be investigated.