Orbit

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Paul Wilson pwilson@apnic.net wrote:

That said, it would be great to receive some guidance from the community before the next meeting, because I am sure there are many issues to be considered. So I hope your message starts a good discussion. :-)

Adam did some very excellent work for his presentation and proposal. I didn't see in there any reference to how the policy bodies in the other regions gauge consensus of remote participants, but that may have been discussed during the presentation at APNIC37.

This may be a good opportunity for the Policy SIG Chair to consult with the Chairs of the policy bodies in the other regions to see if there are features of the other remote participation mechanisms that are particularly useful in AP. Even if you find that buttons are the best way, you'll know that you've done your due diligence within the numbering communities.

Louie

Izumi,

Sorry, I forgot to answer one of your questions.

Would the next Policy SIG totally be based on button pressing including those at the venue?

Yes, we plan to ask by e-consensus system for both of physical participants and remote participants. However, we also use traditional way (showing hands for physical participants and chat for remote participants) as I mentioned in previous e-mail.

Also, it is not just "pressing button". It will have more flexible questions and choices as we are doing in traditional way.

Rgs, Masato Yamanishi Policy SIG co-chair

On 14/05/19 19:52, "Masato Yamanishi" myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:

Izumi,

Thank you for raising your concern.

I'm afraid many of your concerns come from misunderstanding, let me clarify current Chairs' understanding for the e-consensus system.

1. As same as traditional "showing hands", it is one of factors when

deciding the consensus As we did in past, Chairs will also consider, - Discussion on the mailing list - Discussion in the meeting Also, Chairs may ask the reason if there are some oppositions, and consider those reasons when deciding the consensus.

2. The questions and choices are configurable on demand It is NOT binary (nor ternary) choice. Normally, we present 5

choices, which are Strongly support/Support/Neutral/Oppose/Strongly Oppose, but actually the question and options are configurable on demand. So, chairs may set additional questions, like "if this point is modified, what do you think?", or "which do you prefer original one or modified one?", or add more options, like "I can't live with (or without) this". And these changes can be made during the session as we did in past "showing hands".

3. It is NOT voting As mentioned above, it is just one of factors in deciding the

consensus while voting is final result. Also, the Secretariat and Chairs are trying to find good way to show the results since showing the numbers is not good idea apparently.

4. Registration is required While current chat system doesn't require any registration, this

e-consensus will require registration. However, we need to consider the level of verification during registration, since strict verification may have negative impact for our openness.

5. Next few meetings will be a trial Chairs will ask the consensus by both ways (showing hands and

e-consensus system), and compare results to measure its advantage and disadvantage, in particular following aspects. - Does the number of participants increase or decrease? - Does the e-consensus system show same results as traditional "showing hands" or different? - Does the anonymousness of e-consensus system have negative impact for further discussion? - Is it possible to cheat easily?

Also, please consider that current chat system may not be enough as a tool asking consensus to remote participants. When we had remote hubs, we normally saw 20-30 remote participants and many of them participated in the consensus. However, now we are seeing just 1 or 2 support or opposition through the chat in last few meetings.

It is very appreciated if you could share any idea or thoughts to improve it.

Rgs, Masato Yamanishi Policy SIG co-chair

On 14/05/15 8:35, "Izumi Okutani" izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:

...

Hi all,

I have a few comments about the idea discussed in Policy SIG at APNIC37 about replacing show of hands with pressing buttons online.

Consensus Measurement https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/community-consultation-on-consensus- m easurement_1393475895.pdf

These are the points I discussed with my colleagues in JPNIC and would be interested to hear from the Secretariat, Chair/Co-Chair and others on this list.

• Support the motivation of encouraging more participation from remote

participants.

• On the other hand, we have some concerns as below:

• Less transparency in the process
• Consensus is not voting but pressing buttons but may encourage misunderstanding
• Anonymous voting may allow multiple voting per person

• Suggestions:

• Ensure Chair/Co-Chair will not only make decisions based on button pressed results but consider the contents of discussions in making consensus decisions. (As it is today)

• Clearly explain the above, and pressing the button is not voting: on APNIC's PDP webpage and at Policy SIG by Chair/Co-Chair

• Identity of who pressed what button must be trackable. At least, Chair/Co-Chair and the secretariat should be able to identify and track who pressued and expressed what opinion. This is to reduce the risk of multiple voting by a single person, and allow Chair/Co-Chair to clarify the intention with indivisual(s) if necessary.

• Question:

I heard the secretariat is preparing to try this from the next meeting. If this is true, how would this work in APNIC38: Would the next Policy SIG totally be based on button pressing including those at the venue?

Thanks, Izumi/JPNIC

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
  

---

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Yamanishi-san,

Thank you for taking your time to explain, I got the impression we discussed most of the points in Warsaw last week so I am slightly confused what you think I misunderstand.

Never the less, it is still helpful to see this summary and for sharing with others, so thank you.

1)-3): I agree. My concern is e-consensus system may be more easily confused as an electric voting.

I hope 1)-3) will be clearly explained to participants before consensus process of a proposal. May I assume this would be the case? I found the link shared by Randy helpful.

4): Thank you for clarifying this. This was something I wanted to understand.

Between my last e-mail and now, I have an additional understanding that this can also potentially help, for example, to shape discussions onsite by Chair/Co-Chair before consensus questions to get a feel of the room and better shape direction of discussions. This would be an interesting use and I would support trying this initiatvive more proactively .

Izumi

(2014/05/20 11:52), Masato Yamanishi wrote:

Izumi,

Thank you for raising your concern.

I'm afraid many of your concerns come from misunderstanding, let me clarify current Chairs' understanding for the e-consensus system.

1. As same as traditional "showing hands", it is one of factors when

deciding the consensus As we did in past, Chairs will also consider, - Discussion on the mailing list - Discussion in the meeting Also, Chairs may ask the reason if there are some oppositions, and consider those reasons when deciding the consensus.

2. The questions and choices are configurable on demand It is NOT binary (nor ternary) choice. Normally, we present 5

choices, which are Strongly support/Support/Neutral/Oppose/Strongly Oppose, but actually the question and options are configurable on demand. So, chairs may set additional questions, like "if this point is modified, what do you think?", or "which do you prefer original one or modified one?", or add more options, like "I can't live with (or without) this". And these changes can be made during the session as we did in past "showing hands".

3. It is NOT voting As mentioned above, it is just one of factors in deciding the

consensus while voting is final result. Also, the Secretariat and Chairs are trying to find good way to show the results since showing the numbers is not good idea apparently.

4. Registration is required While current chat system doesn't require any registration, this

e-consensus will require registration. However, we need to consider the level of verification during registration, since strict verification may have negative impact for our openness.

5. Next few meetings will be a trial Chairs will ask the consensus by both ways (showing hands and

e-consensus system), and compare results to measure its advantage and disadvantage, in particular following aspects. - Does the number of participants increase or decrease? - Does the e-consensus system show same results as traditional "showing hands" or different? - Does the anonymousness of e-consensus system have negative impact for further discussion? - Is it possible to cheat easily?

Also, please consider that current chat system may not be enough as a tool asking consensus to remote participants. When we had remote hubs, we normally saw 20-30 remote participants and many of them participated in the consensus. However, now we are seeing just 1 or 2 support or opposition through the chat in last few meetings.

It is very appreciated if you could share any idea or thoughts to improve it.

Rgs, Masato Yamanishi Policy SIG co-chair

On 14/05/15 8:35, "Izumi Okutani" izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:

...

Hi all,

I have a few comments about the idea discussed in Policy SIG at APNIC37 about replacing show of hands with pressing buttons online.

Consensus Measurement https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/community-consultation-on-consensus-m easurement_1393475895.pdf

These are the points I discussed with my colleagues in JPNIC and would be interested to hear from the Secretariat, Chair/Co-Chair and others on this list.

• Support the motivation of encouraging more participation from remote

participants.

• On the other hand, we have some concerns as below:

  • Less transparency in the process
  • Consensus is not voting but pressing buttons but may encourage misunderstanding
  • Anonymous voting may allow multiple voting per person

• Suggestions:

  • Ensure Chair/Co-Chair will not only make decisions based on button pressed results but consider the contents of discussions in making consensus decisions. (As it is today)

  • Clearly explain the above, and pressing the button is not voting: on APNIC's PDP webpage and at Policy SIG by Chair/Co-Chair

  • Identity of who pressed what button must be trackable. At least, Chair/Co-Chair and the secretariat should be able to identify and track who pressued and expressed what opinion. This is to reduce the risk of multiple voting by a single person, and allow Chair/Co-Chair to clarify the intention with indivisual(s) if necessary.

• Question:

I heard the secretariat is preparing to try this from the next meeting. If this is true, how would this work in APNIC38: Would the next Policy SIG totally be based on button pressing including those at the venue?

Thanks, Izumi/JPNIC

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
  

---

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
  

---

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

And even if today's chairs are able to use it as a single input into their decision making process, I think that it maybe too tempting a fall back for future chairs.

I'm unconvinced as well. -- Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:

...

My concern is e-consensus system may be more easily confused as an electric voting.

i strongly agree with this concern.

i suspect that we are a bunch of engineers trying to use technology to compensate for not being sensitive to our membership/audience. boys and their toys, is the american idiom.

randy

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
  

---

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Randy and Dean,

On 14/05/21 1:22, "Randy Bush" randy@psg.com wrote:

...

And even if today's chairs are able to use it as a single input into their decision making process, I think that it maybe too tempting a fall back for future chairs.

$100 says that we will be voting within five years

IMO, another problem is the consensus and Chairs' decision making process are not well described in SIG guideline (and almost nothing in PDP), so Chairs have too much flexibility when making decision. I think 100% fixed rule is not appropriate for our community, but do you have any idea to improve current description?

Rgs, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Co-Chair

this is a bad path

randy

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
  

---

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Hi colleagues,

Op 28 mei 2014, om 10:07 heeft Randy Bush randy@psg.com het volgende geschreven:

...

I think 100% fixed rule is not appropriate for our community, but do you have any idea to improve current description?

i like the ietf draft to which i keep pointing [0]

Yes, that is a very good document, and this part is crucial:

"If the chair of a working group determines that a technical issue brought forward by an objector has been truly considered by the working group, and the working group has made an informed decision that the objection has been answered or is not enough of a technical problem to prevent moving forward, the chair can declare that there is rough consensus to go forward, the objection notwithstanding."

Everybody's objection is heard and no objections are rejected without being duly considered. In the end it is the working group chair's responsibility to make sure that this happens and that the interests of the whole working group are taken into account. Not just the people pushing forward, not just the people that keep objecting, and certainly not just the loudest ones.

Setting very strict rules is dangerous because then someone can try to game the system. Having solid principles duch as described in draft-resnick-on-consensus helps a lot and gives both the working group and its chairs guidance. As Resnick's draft says: "It describes a way of thinking about how we make our decisions."

Being a good working group chair is not always an easy task.

Cheers, Sander

[0] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-on-consensus/

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve@v4now.com wrote:

All,

I support Izumi in this concern.

I agree that electronic measurement is a good idea... BUT, yes, people will think it is a vote. If the Chairs go against this 'vote', people will get grumpy and there will be all sorts of issues... especially when a vote is close.

If a "vote" is close, it's highly, highly unlikely that consensus has been reached. And that's no different from where we are now with the show of hands. I believe that we have a problem with the process right now in that we get policy decided by at best a couple of dozen people in the Policy SIG meeting. There are sometimes more than that present but if you take away all the RIR staff then that's really the number making the call.

I've had at least one Open Policy Meeting during my term where I thought long and hard about saying "there aren't enough people here to be able to say that this represents the 'Internet community' in the Asia Pacific region".

Of course, you can argue that consensus is based on the opinions of "those who care" (http://www.ietf.org/tao.html) but I'd argue that's valid when you have a large number of people who care - as in the IETF.

Some meetings ago, Randy proposed that we should dispense with the current policy process - we didn't agree on that but I have no doubt that the process we have now needs to change. There is a real risk that decisions on policy are made by those who can afford to turn up to the Open Policy Meeting.

So let's look at using electronic measurement in some form to empower remote participants - my bet is there'll be a very small number.

Izumi and All,

Sorry for late reply.

1. When there is a big difference in discussions and positions

expressed by e-consensus, Chair/Co-Chair will not only judge based on e-consensus (which is what we do today)

I can confirm it, but please also see my comments for next point.

2. Describe consensus more explicitly than we do today both during

Policy SIG and on Policy Development Website

I think these points are not only for e-consensus but also applicable for current "show of hands" since your have a concern about a description of "consensus" itself.

As of today, what we have as written text is only Section 5.1 in SIG guideline, (https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/join-discussions/sigs/sig-guid elines.pdf).

It says;

The show of hands is not a vote. It is a way of broadly gauging opinion.

and also;

If there are objections, the Chair can ask the dissenters to decide if their objections are:

i. Minor objections If the proposal goes forward, the dissenters believe that some problems may occur for some members in the group. The participants should work together to see if the proposal can be modified to overcome these minor objections. However, it is not always possible to overcome these objections. If this is the case, the Chair should ask the dissenters if they are prepared to acknowledge that the overall advantages of the proposal outweigh their objections and if the dissenters are willing to stand aside.

ii. Major objections If the proposal goes forward, the dissenters believe that major problems will occur for parts of the community and that the proposal cannot be adopted in its current format.

The Chair should devote sufficient time for participants to discuss ways to overcome major objections. As in the case of minor objections, participants, including the proponent, should work together to develop solutions that overcome the objections.

I am doubt current description is enough, but Chairs cannot add or modify SIG guideline by the sole discretion. So, can you or somebody suggest better description if we will set a community consultation in next meeting?

2. Ensure ways to confirm who expressed what opinion, in case there is

big difference in what was discussed and expression of position through e-consensus (if this can be done by registration and chair/co-chair can follow up if necessary, that is fine)

Under current PDP and SIG guideline, I'm not sure Chairs nor the Secretariat have an authority to investigate each community member's favor even if it was expressed anonymously. And also, I'm afraid some community members may not want to give such authority to Chairs nor the Secretariat. However, since it is specific issue for e-consensus, we can discuss this point more during the trial.

Rgs, Masato

On 14/05/23 4:16, "Izumi Okutani" izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:

Hi all,

Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts. It's helpful to know there are a few others who share the same concern.

I think this can actually be addressed by what I suggested.

In general, I think this is a good initiative to support wider participation in the process, with also helping the Chair to get the sense of room in the course of the discussions.

I also agree this is just one method on how to get a fee of the people and doesn't change to overall process nor meaning of the consensus. Show of hands/humming.e-cosensus, whatever we use, as long as it's clearly explained how they will be taken into account in the context of consensus buidling, it doesn't really matter what tool we use.

So Andy/Masato, if you could confirm below, it would clear my concerns:

1. When there is a big difference in discussions and positions expressed by e-consensus, Chair/Co-Chair will not only judge based on e-consensus (which is what we do today)

2. Describe consensus more explicitly than we do today both during Policy SIG and on Policy Development Website

3. Ensure ways to confirm who expressed what opinion, in case there is big difference in what was discussed and expression of position through e-consensus (if this can be done by registration and chair/co-chair can follow up if necessary, that is fine)

I trust they will addressed be from reading between the lines of your e-mails but it is still helpful to have a clear message and confirmation.

I am happy to support trying this for the next meeting if it is clear and confirmed they will be addressed.Thanks!

Izumi

(2014/05/21 17:41), Andy Linton wrote:

...

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve@v4now.com wrote:

...

All,

I support Izumi in this concern.

I agree that electronic measurement is a good idea... BUT, yes, people will think it is a vote. If the Chairs go against this 'vote', people will get grumpy and there will be all sorts of issues... especially when a vote is close.

If a "vote" is close, it's highly, highly unlikely that consensus has been reached. And that's no different from where we are now with the show of hands. I believe that we have a problem with the process right now in that we get policy decided by at best a couple of dozen people in the Policy SIG meeting. There are sometimes more than that present but if you take away all the RIR staff then that's really the number making the call.

I've had at least one Open Policy Meeting during my term where I thought long and hard about saying "there aren't enough people here to be able to say that this represents the 'Internet community' in the Asia Pacific region".

Of course, you can argue that consensus is based on the opinions of "those who care" (http://www.ietf.org/tao.html) but I'd argue that's valid when you have a large number of people who care - as in the IETF.

Some meetings ago, Randy proposed that we should dispense with the current policy process - we didn't agree on that but I have no doubt that the process we have now needs to change. There is a real risk that decisions on policy are made by those who can afford to turn up to the Open Policy Meeting.

So let's look at using electronic measurement in some form to empower remote participants - my bet is there'll be a very small number.

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
  

---

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
  

---

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Izumi and All,

Let me add one more point.

Since the consensus is vital part of our PDP, don't we need to describe it in PDP document, not in SIG guideline?

Rgs, Masato

On 14/05/27 21:06, "Izumi Okutani" izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:

Yamanishi-san, all,

Thanks for your feedback Yamanishi-san.

Describing consensus more clearly - I am happy to work on it. Since there is already an IETF document, we can perhaps use it as the basis rather than defining from scratch?

Clarifying who expressesd what opinion

...

However, since it is specific issue for e-consensus, we can discuss this point more during the trial.

Sure. I think credibility of what is expressed through e-consensus is important when it is not visible to others. If this can be ensured, I am open to hear other ideas.

Izumi

(2014/05/28 12:21), Masato Yamanishi wrote:

...

Izumi and All,

Sorry for late reply.

...

1. When there is a big difference in discussions and positions

expressed by e-consensus, Chair/Co-Chair will not only judge based on e-consensus (which is what we do today)

I can confirm it, but please also see my comments for next point.

...

2. Describe consensus more explicitly than we do today both during

Policy SIG and on Policy Development Website

I think these points are not only for e-consensus but also applicable for current "show of hands" since your have a concern about a description of "consensus" itself.

As of today, what we have as written text is only Section 5.1 in SIG guideline,

(https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/join-discussions/sigs/sig-gu id elines.pdf).

It says;

 The show of hands is not a vote. It is a way of broadly gauging

opinion.

and also;

 If there are objections, the Chair can ask the dissenters to

decide if their objections are:

 i. Minor objections
    If the proposal goes forward, the dissenters believe that some

problems may occur for some members in the group. The participants should work together to see if the proposal can be modified to overcome these minor objections. However, it is not always possible to overcome these objections. If this is the case, the Chair should ask the dissenters if they are prepared to acknowledge that the overall advantages of the proposal outweigh their objections and if the dissenters are willing to stand aside.

 ii. Major objections
    If the proposal goes forward, the dissenters believe that major

problems will occur for parts of the community and that the proposal cannot be adopted in its current format.

 The Chair should devote sufficient time for participants to discuss

ways to overcome major objections. As in the case of minor objections, participants, including the proponent, should work together to develop solutions that overcome the objections.

I am doubt current description is enough, but Chairs cannot add or modify SIG guideline by the sole discretion. So, can you or somebody suggest better description if we will set a community consultation in next meeting?

...

2. Ensure ways to confirm who expressed what opinion, in case there is

big difference in what was discussed and expression of position through e-consensus (if this can be done by registration and chair/co-chair can follow up if necessary, that is fine)

Under current PDP and SIG guideline, I'm not sure Chairs nor the Secretariat have an authority to investigate each community member's favor even if it was expressed anonymously. And also, I'm afraid some community members may not want to give such authority to Chairs nor the Secretariat. However, since it is specific issue for e-consensus, we can discuss this point more during the trial.

Rgs, Masato

On 14/05/23 4:16, "Izumi Okutani" izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:

...

Hi all,

Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts. It's helpful to know there are a few others who share the same concern.

I think this can actually be addressed by what I suggested.

In general, I think this is a good initiative to support wider participation in the process, with also helping the Chair to get the sense of room in the course of the discussions.

I also agree this is just one method on how to get a fee of the people and doesn't change to overall process nor meaning of the consensus. Show of hands/humming.e-cosensus, whatever we use, as long as it's clearly explained how they will be taken into account in the context of consensus buidling, it doesn't really matter what tool we use.

So Andy/Masato, if you could confirm below, it would clear my concerns:

1. When there is a big difference in discussions and positions expressed by e-consensus, Chair/Co-Chair will not only judge based on e-consensus (which is what we do today)

2. Describe consensus more explicitly than we do today both during Policy SIG and on Policy Development Website

3. Ensure ways to confirm who expressed what opinion, in case there is big difference in what was discussed and expression of position through e-consensus (if this can be done by registration and chair/co-chair can follow up if necessary, that is fine)

I trust they will addressed be from reading between the lines of your e-mails but it is still helpful to have a clear message and confirmation.

I am happy to support trying this for the next meeting if it is clear and confirmed they will be addressed.Thanks!

Izumi

(2014/05/21 17:41), Andy Linton wrote:

...

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve@v4now.com wrote:

...

All,

I support Izumi in this concern.

I agree that electronic measurement is a good idea... BUT, yes, people will think it is a vote. If the Chairs go against this 'vote', people will get grumpy and there will be all sorts of issues... especially when a vote is close.

If a "vote" is close, it's highly, highly unlikely that consensus has been reached. And that's no different from where we are now with the show of hands. I believe that we have a problem with the process right now in that we get policy decided by at best a couple of dozen people in the Policy SIG meeting. There are sometimes more than that present but if you take away all the RIR staff then that's really the number making the call.

I've had at least one Open Policy Meeting during my term where I thought long and hard about saying "there aren't enough people here to be able to say that this represents the 'Internet community' in the Asia Pacific region".

Of course, you can argue that consensus is based on the opinions of "those who care" (http://www.ietf.org/tao.html) but I'd argue that's valid when you have a large number of people who care - as in the IETF.

Some meetings ago, Randy proposed that we should dispense with the current policy process - we didn't agree on that but I have no doubt that the process we have now needs to change. There is a real risk that decisions on policy are made by those who can afford to turn up to the Open Policy Meeting.

So let's look at using electronic measurement in some form to empower remote participants - my bet is there'll be a very small number.

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
  *
  

---

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
  

---

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
  

---

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy