From: "Chanki Park" ckp@nic.or.kr
Reply-To:
To: "'Izumi Okutani'" izumi@nic.ad.jp
Subject: RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re:
Date:Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:19 +0900
Hi Chanki,
The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period
because the observation is only that narrow period.
(The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were
totally ignored)
BIG MISTAKE!!!
According to my understanding of the process, the whole idea of having
the final comment period on the mailing list is to confirm if it is
really okay to go ahead with the meeting consensus. If there are
substantial objections on the mailing list, the meeting
consensus can be
reversed.
Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial
enough to reverse the process?
Good point.
Also, as I remeber, there were more than 20 hands showing their supporting and
only less than 5 showing the other way. Why that cannot be judged as CONSENSUS in
the VietNam meeting ?
So the conclusion had to be something like this :
Reasoning
- The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during
8 week comment
period.
"There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this
proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members)
4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members)
1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR
APNIC members)"
conclusion
There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but
consensus has been
reached.
Comments are welcomed on above observations.
IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to
APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through
proper steps with consensus.
(There were some chances to proposal, but it went through
as it is now)
Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
I understand you have a different opinion over whether the
objections on
the mailing list was "substantial", but this is just a
difference in our
opinions. I can't declare consensus when I believe more
discussions are
needed.
You have to modify the announcement and declare it again.
Because it contains SERIOUS LOGICAL error.
As I mentioned earlier you only observed small part but concluded in full,
which means you only looked eyes but described whole face. There is
no credence in that description.
Two errors have to be fixed.
- The logical error(observing small part but concluding in full,)
- Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1.
I'm sure your opinion on the mailing list will be reviewed by the EC
too, so why don't we leave it upto the EC to make the final decision?
The proposal can not go to EC unless you withdraw your announcement
and correct the mistake and publish.
Please, correct the mistakes.
Regards,
Chanki
sig-nir mailing list
sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
