Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear all,
During its telephone conference meeting of 25 November 2005, and APNIC EC discussed the current situation regarding proposal "prop-028-v001", calling for the abolition of per- address fees for NIRs.
The EC recognised that under the APNIC policy development process there is no requirement for this matter to be discussed by the EC, because the SIG chair has reached a judgement of "no consensus" on this matter
The EC however discussed the matter, and it saw no reason to question the judgement of the SIG chair regarding consensus within the NIR SIG.
It must be concluded therefore that the decision of the SIG chair stands, and that further discussion of the proposal will continue on the sig-nir mailing list toward the consensus in the next APNIC21.
Regards,
MAEMURA Akinori Chair, APNIC Executive Council
MAEMURA and all,
I see. Well "Consensus" decided by fiat is still not consensus. Unless such can be definitively measured, a consensus cannot exist in reality.
Anyone's judgment is subject to question or scrutiny, anyone's!
This is bad policy making...
MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
Dear all,
During its telephone conference meeting of 25 November 2005, and APNIC EC discussed the current situation regarding proposal "prop-028-v001", calling for the abolition of per- address fees for NIRs.
The EC recognised that under the APNIC policy development process there is no requirement for this matter to be discussed by the EC, because the SIG chair has reached a judgement of "no consensus" on this matter
The EC however discussed the matter, and it saw no reason to question the judgement of the SIG chair regarding consensus within the NIR SIG.
It must be concluded therefore that the decision of the SIG chair stands, and that further discussion of the proposal will continue on the sig-nir mailing list toward the consensus in the next APNIC21.
Regards,
MAEMURA Akinori Chair, APNIC Executive Council
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
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
Dear all,
Jeff is right.
This is really bad policy making process.
I will try to summarize what went wrong and post it on the list.
Regards,
Chanki Park
MAEMURA and all,
I see. Well "Consensus" decided by fiat is still not consensus. Unless such can be definitively measured, a consensus cannot exist in reality.
Anyone's judgment is subject to question or scrutiny, anyone's!
This is bad policy making...
MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
Dear all,
During its telephone conference meeting of 25 November 2005, and APNIC EC discussed the current situation regarding proposal "prop-028-v001", calling for the abolition of per- address fees for NIRs.
The EC recognised that under the APNIC policy development process there is no requirement for this matter to be discussed by the EC, because the SIG chair has reached a judgement of "no consensus" on this matter
The EC however discussed the matter, and it saw no reason to question the judgement of the SIG chair regarding consensus within the NIR SIG.
It must be concluded therefore that the decision of the SIG chair stands, and that further discussion of the proposal will continue on the sig-nir mailing list toward the consensus in the next APNIC21.
Regards,
MAEMURA Akinori Chair, APNIC Executive Council
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resourcemanagement policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Dear Chanki,
I'm now writing with my personal capability.
Please notice that EC's statement which I made advised you all that the process for this particular proposal was over.
Unfortunately that won't fit your thought, but I'd like to ask you to cease this discussion on this particular proposal, respecting Chairs' conclusion, and start substantial discussion toward APNIC21.
I guess that the summarization which you said you would give us later will repeat your perspective which have been presented several times.
Your argument is, in short, Chairs' conclusion of no consensus is a MISTAKE or SERIOUS ERROR. You've repeated these words many times.
I don't think you understand APNIC process in a good shape. Save's message on Thusday November 24 explain that;
| Answers to 1 & 2 below is described in the APNIC Policy Development | Process document: | http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/policy-development.html | | > 1. Can chair declare a decision under this situation? | | "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." | | > 2. What is the meaning of "consensus"? | | "Consensus is defined as "general agreement" as observed by the Chair | of the meeting." and on the mailing list: | | "Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial | objections raised during the "comment period" | | It is the chair's responsibility to judge this.
Speaking along the process;
With these sentenses, I as well as many other people, can interpret that Chairs' conclusion reflected their observation that there hadn't been the continued consensus but had substantial objections. Again I as well as many other people naturally agree on this conclusion.
Unfortunately your view is different from Chairs' as well as mine, but I'd like to see that you respect Chairs' decision for this particular proposal at APNIC20, then discuss within SIG mailingist including people who have already volunteered toward the consensus at APNIC21.
If you think current process has serious flaw you can propose a process revision. Yes it may have something which should be fixed
Speaking along the substance;
I have been working on NIR issues for six years at APNIC. and have seen sometimes non-NIR and NIR members' interests conflicted time to time, especially in terms of the fee, these two take different systems which may conflict.
Moreover sometimes I hear someone arguing that NIRs are too complecated and should be discontinued (exaggerated? anyway in such direction ).
I think NIRs, dedicated professionals for registry operations, should demonstrate that they operate APNIC processes in reasonable manner. We shouldn't play tugs of war with non NIR members but convince them how reasonable our proposal is.
I'm afraid we NIRs were not enough in this point this time, Now I can find several points to be technically improved in this proposal.
NIRs may try again to propose waiver of IPv6 PAR. On the other hand, I am really concerned with a long-term solution with new NIR fee structure and JPNIC will work hard. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Kind Regards, ----- MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department maem@maem.org , maem@nic.ad.jp
In message 200512010116.jB11GKw15095@mail.nic.or.kr "RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision of PROP-028-v001" ""Chanki Park" ckp@nic.or.kr" wrote:
| Dear all, | | Jeff is right. | | This is really bad policy making process. | | I will try to summarize what went wrong and post it on the list. | | Regards, | | Chanki Park | | > | > MAEMURA and all, | > | > I see. Well "Consensus" decided by fiat is still not consensus. | > Unless such can be definitively measured, a consensus cannot | > exist in reality. | > | > Anyone's judgment is subject to question or scrutiny, anyone's! | > | > This is bad policy making... | > | > MAEMURA Akinori wrote: | > | > > Dear all, | > > | > > During its telephone conference meeting of 25 November 2005, | > > and APNIC EC discussed the current situation regarding | > > proposal "prop-028-v001", calling for the abolition of per- | > > address fees for NIRs. | > > | > > The EC recognised that under the APNIC policy development | > > process there is no requirement for this matter to be | > > discussed by the EC, because the SIG chair has reached a | > > judgement of "no consensus" on this matter | > > | > > The EC however discussed the matter, and it saw no reason to | > > question the judgement of the SIG chair regarding consensus | > > within the NIR SIG. | > > | > > It must be concluded therefore that the decision of the SIG | > > chair stands, and that further discussion of the proposal | > > will continue on the sig-nir mailing list toward the | > > consensus in the next APNIC21. | > > | > > Regards, | > > | > > MAEMURA Akinori | > > Chair, APNIC Executive Council | > > * 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 | > | > Regards, | > -- | > Jeffrey A. Williams | > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) | > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - | > Abraham Lincoln | > | > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is | > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt | > | > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; | > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by | > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." | > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] | > =============================================================== | > Updated 1/26/04 | > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security | > IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. | > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 | > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com | > Registered Email addr with the USPS | > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 | > | > | > * 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 |
Dear all,
Let's move to the next step regarding PROP-028-v001.
I've earlier made a suggestion about setting up a working group which was postponed until the EC decision.
I'd like to ask the NIRs once again if you wish to work closely on the proposal by setting up a working group. If yes, then I will make a formal call for the volunteers from the whole community and we can start the discussions there.
Izumi
Dear all,
As I promised, it my summary of what went wrong.
I've been participating and monitoring this policy developing process, and I would like to point out some of the errors for our future process. This is my personal view, and it has nothing to do with my company. Your comments are welcomed.
First, the decision making of chair. Before the decision was announced, there were internal debate among some of NIR members regarding the meaning of "substantial objection". Is 4:4:1(against: : for : conditional) opinions that were submitted during public comment period substantial objection? Some member asked for more time to have discussion on the validity of objections and discuss more if they were substantial objection. However, the chair ignored some members opinion and send final decision.(My feeling toward this action is the chair lost its neutral position and was pushing toward predetermined course.) Sending final announcement while debates were going on is definitely wrong. Specially without defining the meaning of "substantial objection" and without discussing if the objections raised were valid and substantial. (How can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?)
Second, the decision of chair. The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I mentioned earlier, the chair only observed public comment period and concluded that "There is no clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of AMM. If the chair is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't, and the result was totally opposite.
Third, the fiat from EC chair. If some people raised objections against SIG chair's decision, EC should have investigated if the SIG chair's decision was reasonable and if the objection was valid. However, the EC chair sent a fiat when the proposal was not even EC's table. He simply cut in and stopped discussion.(I looked EC chair's role from APNIC document, and I could not find any document that says EC chair can cut in, stop discussion and act as a judge.)
Conclusion Our PDP is not weak enough to alter the final result by a few people. For the future, 1. We need to define the meaning of "substantial objection" 2. We need to elaborate our PDP. ie) After public comment period, let EC make the final call, not the SIG chair.(It's too much responsibility for SIG chair when split opinions are observed. SIG chair's duty should be limited to reporting to EC.)
Like I wrote earlier, comments are welcomed.
Regards,
Chanki Park
-----Original Message----- From: sig-nir-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-nir-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Chanki Park Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:16 AM To: 'Jeff Williams'; 'MAEMURA Akinori' Cc: sig-nir@lists.apnic.net; 'Dr. Eric Dierker'; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision ofPROP-028-v001
Dear all,
Jeff is right.
This is really bad policy making process.
I will try to summarize what went wrong and post it on the list.
Regards,
Chanki Park
MAEMURA and all,
I see. Well "Consensus" decided by fiat is still not consensus. Unless such can be definitively measured, a consensus cannot exist in reality.
Anyone's judgment is subject to question or scrutiny, anyone's!
This is bad policy making...
MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
Dear all,
During its telephone conference meeting of 25 November 2005, and APNIC EC discussed the current situation regarding proposal "prop-028-v001", calling for the abolition of per- address fees for NIRs.
The EC recognised that under the APNIC policy development process there is no requirement for this matter to be discussed by the EC, because the SIG chair has reached a judgement of "no consensus" on this matter
The EC however discussed the matter, and it saw no reason to question the judgement of the SIG chair regarding consensus within the NIR SIG.
It must be concluded therefore that the decision of the SIG chair stands, and that further discussion of the proposal will continue on the sig-nir mailing list toward the consensus in the next APNIC21.
Regards,
MAEMURA Akinori Chair, APNIC Executive Council
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resourcemanagement policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k
members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Hi Chanki,
Chanki Park said the following on 6/12/05 12:01:
First, the decision making of chair. Before the decision was announced, there were internal debate among some of NIR members regarding the meaning of "substantial objection". Is 4:4:1(against: : for : conditional) opinions that were submitted during public comment period substantial objection?
<snip>
(How can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?)
Likewise, please explain to us how 4 supporters out of 1000 members is "general consensus"?
Second, the decision of chair. The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I mentioned earlier, the chair only observed public comment period and concluded that "There is no clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of AMM. If the chair is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't, and the result was totally opposite.
The chair takes into account *everything*. APNIC member meetings are not exclusive clubs that can over-ride the entire membership. Yes, the NIR SIG showed expected self-interest and voted through a reduction in their fees, but I don't think anyone outside the NIR community would be in the slightest bit surprised by that. But how can you say that the attendees of the APNIC member meeting are privileged to make decision on behalf of the rest of the APNIC members? That's one of the reasons why the 8 week comment period was introduced after the close of the AMM. Are you suggesting now that we should get rid of this, and make the views of the AMM binding? How elitist, how selfish, how disrespectful to the developing parts of the Internet in this part of the world.
Third, the fiat from EC chair. If some people raised objections against SIG chair's decision, EC should have investigated if the SIG chair's decision was reasonable and if the objection was valid. However, the EC chair sent a fiat when the proposal was not even EC's table. He simply cut in and stopped discussion.(I looked EC chair's role from APNIC document, and I could not find any document that says EC chair can cut in, stop discussion and act as a judge.)
I'm sorry, I must have missed that whole e-mail thread. Can you show me the e-mail from the chair of the APNIC EC which says "please stop discussing prop-028-v001, the NIR SIG chair made the correct decision". I saw an e-mail from the EC Chair which answered a request from the NIR SIG chair on whether or not she'd done something improper within the current policy development process framework.
Conclusion Our PDP is weak enough to alter the final result by a few people. For the future,
- We need to define the meaning of "substantial objection"
- We need to elaborate our PDP.
ie) After public comment period, let EC make the final call, not the SIG chair.(It's too much responsibility for SIG chair when split opinions are observed. SIG chair's duty should be limited to reporting to EC.)
To this I'd add:
3. Define the meaning of "general consensus"
But... Why should the EC make the final call? Why do you think it is too much responsibility for the SIG Chair? I'd be intrigued to know the reasoning, more than just "I think", that is...
As I said right at the start, what is your motivation in this, apart from wanting to dictate to the whole region? So much for the bottom up process...
Like I wrote earlier, comments are welcomed.
Here are my two final comments, and I suggest you read and act on them:
- Stop complaining and whining like a spoilt child, and actually sit down and do something constructive now.
*and*
- If you see problems with the Policy Development Process, propose improvements, with a well argued reasoning for the pros and cons of those improvements. The call for proposals has just gone out, you have until 30th January to submit your ideas. Then please come to Perth and present them.
Good luck and best wishes,
philip --
<snip>
Likewise, please explain to us how 4 supporters out of 1000 members is "general consensus"?
Dear Philip,
You are exactly pointing out the same thing I pointed out.
I can not answer to above question.
So my expectation was "A tie" or "can not decide" instead of "no consensus". (This is the reason I call the chair's decision A MISTAKE)
This made everything deviate...
If the chair sent to EC for final decision and EC called "no consensus", I would have not said anything...
At last, Philip and Chanki pinpointed the problem area.
Should we discuss more or cover it?
Regards,
Chanki
Second, the decision of chair. The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I
mentioned earlier, the
chair only observed public comment period and concluded
that "There is no
clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of
AMM. If the chair
is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't,
and the result
was totally opposite.
The chair takes into account *everything*. APNIC member meetings are not exclusive clubs that can over-ride the entire membership. Yes, the NIR SIG showed expected self-interest and voted through a reduction in their fees, but I don't think anyone outside the NIR community would be in the slightest bit surprised by that. But how can you say that the attendees of the APNIC member meeting are privileged to make decision on behalf of the rest of the APNIC members? That's one of the reasons why the 8 week comment period was introduced after the close of the AMM. Are you suggesting now that we should get rid of this, and make the views of the AMM binding? How elitist, how selfish, how disrespectful to the developing parts of the Internet in this part of the world.
Third, the fiat from EC chair. If some people raised objections against SIG chair's
decision, EC should
have investigated if the SIG chair's decision was
reasonable and if the
objection was valid. However, the EC chair sent a fiat when
the proposal was
not even EC's table. He simply cut in and stopped
discussion.(I looked EC
chair's role from APNIC document, and I could not find any
document that
says EC chair can cut in, stop discussion and act as a judge.)
I'm sorry, I must have missed that whole e-mail thread. Can you show me the e-mail from the chair of the APNIC EC which says "please stop discussing prop-028-v001, the NIR SIG chair made the correct decision". I saw an e-mail from the EC Chair which answered a request from the NIR SIG chair on whether or not she'd done something improper within the current policy development process framework.
Conclusion Our PDP is weak enough to alter the final result by a few people. For the future,
- We need to define the meaning of "substantial objection"
- We need to elaborate our PDP.
ie) After public comment period, let EC make the final
call, not the SIG
chair.(It's too much responsibility for SIG chair when
split opinions are
observed. SIG chair's duty should be limited to reporting to EC.)
To this I'd add:
- Define the meaning of "general consensus"
But... Why should the EC make the final call? Why do you think it is too much responsibility for the SIG Chair? I'd be intrigued to know the reasoning, more than just "I think", that is...
As I said right at the start, what is your motivation in this, apart from wanting to dictate to the whole region? So much for the bottom up process...
Like I wrote earlier, comments are welcomed.
Here are my two final comments, and I suggest you read and act on them:
- Stop complaining and whining like a spoilt child, and actually sit
down and do something constructive now.
*and*
- If you see problems with the Policy Development Process, propose
improvements, with a well argued reasoning for the pros and cons of those improvements. The call for proposals has just gone out, you have until 30th January to submit your ideas. Then please come to Perth and present them.
Good luck and best wishes,
philip
Chanki
So my expectation was "A tie" or "can not decide" instead of "no consensus". (This is the reason I call the chair's decision A MISTAKE)
One important clarification. This is not a vote. Therefore a "tie" or "cannot decide" does not exist in the policy development process. Both are states that indicate that there is no general consensus.
I hope this helps,
Anne --
Dear Anne,
Thank you for the information.
Regards,
Chanki
-----Original Message----- From: Anne Lord [mailto:anne@apnic.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 3:30 PM To: Chanki Park Cc: 'Philip Smith'; sig-nir@lists.apnic.net; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision ofPROP-028-v001
Chanki
So my expectation was "A tie" or "can not decide" instead of "no consensus". (This is the reason I call the chair's decision A MISTAKE)
One important clarification. This is not a vote. Therefore a "tie" or "cannot decide" does not exist in the policy development process. Both are states that indicate that there is no general consensus.
I hope this helps,
Anne
Ann and all,
Thank you Ann for your clarification as far as it is a clarification that is..
Indeed this was not a vote. As such there is no consensus as without a means of measuring, consensus cannot be determined. But we have been here before haven't we Ann?
Anne Lord wrote:
Chanki
So my expectation was "A tie" or "can not decide" instead of "no consensus". (This is the reason I call the chair's decision A MISTAKE)
One important clarification. This is not a vote. Therefore a "tie" or "cannot decide" does not exist in the policy development process. Both are states that indicate that there is no general consensus.
I hope this helps,
Anne
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
Regards,
-- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
Chanki Park said the following on 6/12/05 15:02:
<snip>
Likewise, please explain to us how 4 supporters out of 1000 members is "general consensus"?
You are exactly pointing out the same thing I pointed out.
No I am most definitely not...
You are trying to claim that 4 people objecting to and 4 people supporting a proposal out of approx 1000 means that there is general consensus. I hope I don't have to be subjected to any of the meetings you chair where you have to call consensus!
May I suggest you look up what consensus means. I posted the definition in a previous e-mail, go look it up (hint: 25th November at 12:51 AEST).
Maybe you'd like votes?
Now, please go back and read my e-mail of earlier today, especially the suggestions, and write a proposal on how to improve the APNIC Policy Development Process. Then we can all discuss that, and move onwards, and forwards, to better things.
Please!!!!
philip --
Chanki Park said the following on 6/12/05 15:02:
<snip>
Likewise, please explain to us how 4 supporters out of 1000
members is
"general consensus"?
You are exactly pointing out the same thing I pointed out.
No I am most definitely not...
You are trying to claim that 4 people objecting to and 4 people supporting a proposal out of approx 1000 means that there is general consensus.
Dear Philip and Tim,
What I am claiming is "Is 4 objections "substantial objections" ?" If so, then in what way. by the number? by the contents?
Have we investigated objections? Do we have consensus? (But sadly announcement was published.)
-Quoted from our PDP- If the Chair (and Co-chairs) observe that there are no "substantial objections" to the proposed policy, consensus is confirmed and the process continues as outlined below in Step 5. -end of quote-
If we agree on that 4 objections are substantial objection, I have no further to say.
Regards,
Chanki
I hope I don't have to be subjected to any of the meetings you chair where you have to call consensus!
May I suggest you look up what consensus means. I posted the definition in a previous e-mail, go look it up (hint: 25th November at 12:51 AEST).
Maybe you'd like votes?
Now, please go back and read my e-mail of earlier today, especially the suggestions, and write a proposal on how to improve the APNIC Policy Development Process. Then we can all discuss that, and move onwards, and forwards, to better things.
Please!!!!
philip
Chanki,
Please give me the message-id of the mail which you mentioned, then point out the part which you regard as a fiat.
I don't think the EC Chair did that but I will check.
For information, I think that Philip pointed out the message I sent on November 30, with Message-Id of 200511301759.CFI82396.NNBF@maem.org
Regards, MAEMURA Akinori
| > Third, the fiat from EC chair. | > If some people raised objections against SIG chair's decision, EC should | > have investigated if the SIG chair's decision was reasonable and if the | > objection was valid. However, the EC chair sent a fiat when the proposal was | > not even EC's table. He simply cut in and stopped discussion.(I looked EC | > chair's role from APNIC document, and I could not find any document that | > says EC chair can cut in, stop discussion and act as a judge.) | | I'm sorry, I must have missed that whole e-mail thread. Can you show me | the e-mail from the chair of the APNIC EC which says "please stop | discussing prop-028-v001, the NIR SIG chair made the correct decision". | I saw an e-mail from the EC Chair which answered a request from the NIR | SIG chair on whether or not she'd done something improper within the | current policy development process framework. |
Dear Maemura,
I didn't know what fiat was. I got this word from Jeff's mail, and I used it again.
At this point, ALL I am trying to do is to clarify some things for the future so that we don't make similar mistake again.
I hope we handle controversal issues in more professional way.
Subsiding...
Regards,
Chanki
Chanki,
Please give me the message-id of the mail which you mentioned, then point out the part which you regard as a fiat.
I don't think the EC Chair did that but I will check.
For information, I think that Philip pointed out the message I sent on November 30, with Message-Id of 200511301759.CFI82396.NNBF@maem.org
Regards, MAEMURA Akinori
| > Third, the fiat from EC chair. | > If some people raised objections against SIG chair's decision, EC should | > have investigated if the SIG chair's decision was reasonable and if the | > objection was valid. However, the EC chair sent a fiat when the proposal was | > not even EC's table. He simply cut in and stopped discussion.(I looked EC | > chair's role from APNIC document, and I could not find any document that | > says EC chair can cut in, stop discussion and act as a judge.) | | I'm sorry, I must have missed that whole e-mail thread. Can you show me | the e-mail from the chair of the APNIC EC which says "please stop | discussing prop-028-v001, the NIR SIG chair made the correct decision". | I saw an e-mail from the EC Chair which answered a request from the NIR | SIG chair on whether or not she'd done something improper within the | current policy development process framework. |
Okay now I understand you had raised three points which would be POTENTIAL mistakes or their causes.
Just for a prompt response.
Regards, Akinori
In message 200512060737.jB67brB29018@mail.nic.or.kr "RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decisionofPROP-028-v001" ""Chanki Park" ckp@nic.or.kr" wrote:
| | Dear Maemura, | | I didn't know what fiat was. | I got this word from Jeff's mail, and I used it again. | | At this point, ALL I am trying to do is to clarify some things | for the future so that we don't make similar mistake again. | | I hope we handle controversal issues in more professional way. | | Subsiding... | | Regards, | | Chanki | | | > Chanki, | > | > Please give me the message-id of the mail which you mentioned, | > then point out the part which you regard as a fiat. | > | > I don't think the EC Chair did that but I will check. | > | > For information, I think that Philip pointed out the message | > I sent on November 30, with Message-Id of | > 200511301759.CFI82396.NNBF@maem.org | > | > | > Regards, | > MAEMURA Akinori | > | > | > | > | > Third, the fiat from EC chair. | > | > If some people raised objections against SIG chair's | > decision, EC should | > | > have investigated if the SIG chair's decision was | > reasonable and if the | > | > objection was valid. However, the EC chair sent a fiat | > when the proposal was | > | > not even EC's table. He simply cut in and stopped | > discussion.(I looked EC | > | > chair's role from APNIC document, and I could not find | > any document that | > | > says EC chair can cut in, stop discussion and act as a judge.) | > | | > | I'm sorry, I must have missed that whole e-mail thread. Can | > you show me | > | the e-mail from the chair of the APNIC EC which says "please stop | > | discussing prop-028-v001, the NIR SIG chair made the | > correct decision". | > | I saw an e-mail from the EC Chair which answered a request | > from the NIR | > | SIG chair on whether or not she'd done something improper within the | > | current policy development process framework. | > | | > | |
Chanki,
First, the decision making of chair. Before the decision was announced, there were internal debate among some of NIR members regarding the meaning of "substantial objection". Is 4:4:1(against: : for : conditional) opinions that were submitted during public comment period substantial objection? Some member asked for more time to have discussion on the validity of objections and discuss more if they were substantial objection. However, the chair ignored some members opinion and send final decision.(My feeling toward this action is the chair lost its neutral position and was pushing toward predetermined course.) Sending final announcement while debates were going on is definitely wrong. Specially without defining the meaning of "substantial objection" and without discussing if the objections raised were valid and substantial. (How can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?)
A few points about this: Firstly a well known doctrine of common law contracts "Silence is not acceptance", is this a contract ?? I will leave it to the lawyers to decide, however I do not believe you can justify that the "Silence" of the majority sits in anyone's favour. They haven't spoken/objected, therefore they should be excluded from the count. Okutani-san sent out an email request asking for who was for and against this proposal, if 9 parties replied, then it's the 9 we should be dealing with.
My next point is that people for the proposal don't cancel the objections raised by people against the proposal. I think there is a subtle difference between a "vote" and "consensus". If this were a vote, then I may agree with you, however _my_ interpretation of consensus is "appease the objectors". e.g. The policy needs to be worked, such that we all agree with it. We, as a group of objectors, have been forth coming in proposing what we would like to see changed in order for this proposal to gain consensus. To date we haven't seen anything. I hope that come APNIC21 this will have changed.
Second, the decision of chair. The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I mentioned earlier, the chair only observed public comment period and concluded that "There is no clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of AMM. If the chair is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't, and the result was totally opposite.
I disagree with your point here, I believe that if the party running with the proposal can't address the objections being made, then the only viable option left is to withdraw the proposal, as Okutani-san did, be that the individual themselves or the SIG chair championing the proposal. If you are not prepared to address the objections being raised then there are very few options left other than withdrawing the proposal.
Regards
Stephan Millet
Dear Chanki,
I've been participating and monitoring this policy developing process, and I would like to point out some of the errors for our future process. This is my personal view, and it has nothing to do with my company. Your comments are welcomed.
First, the decision making of chair. Before the decision was announced, there were internal debate among some of NIR members regarding the meaning of "substantial objection". Is 4:4:1(against: : for : conditional) opinions that were submitted during public comment period substantial objection? Some member asked for more time to have discussion on the validity of objections and discuss more if they were substantial objection. However, the chair ignored some members opinion and send final decision.(My feeling toward this action is the chair lost its neutral position and was pushing toward predetermined course.) Sending final announcement while debates were going on is definitely wrong.
It was exactly for keeping the neutral position that I went ahead with the annoucement. For an open and fair process, it would not be proper for the Chair to discuss consensus with the proposer before making the announcement in order to maintain impartiality. The Chair must consider the situation of the whole community, as well as the proposer.
In making the consensus decision, Chair discusses with the Co-Chair and decides whether there was a consensus on the proposal or not.
The Chair and the Co-Chair may chose to consult other parties and take in the advice, but the final decision is their choice. I have discussed this matter with David, and also informally with some other SIG chair/co-chair, and the decision was made as a result of this.
Specially without defining the meaning of "substantial objection" and without discussing if the objections raised were valid and
substantial. (How
can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?)
I understand that you have a different view about "substantial objection" from me, and I have discussed this with you so many times.
Your arguement about 4 objections out of 1,000 members is valid if the membership vote was taken. In that case, I agree with your point.
Since we are not taking a vote here, and since it is a consensus based decision, it is not simply counting the number of comments for vs the number of comments against.
The whole idea of this process is to reach a general agreement through discussions, so the content of the discussions is an important factor in making the decision. As you can see from the state of the mailing list, we are still having very active discussions over this.
Mailing list discussions are not suitable for counting numbers because not all 1,000 members subscribe to the mailing list and you really never know how many of them are actually active. If you want to count the numbers, voting is more effective, which certainly could be an option. Perhaps, you can make a proposal at the next meeting if you prefer that kind of process.
The reality is, for this particular proposal, we are following the consensus based decision making process, not the membership vote. So, I have followed the logics based on this process in making my decision.
Second, the decision of chair. The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I mentioned earlier, the chair only observed public comment period and concluded that "There is no clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of AMM. If the chair is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't, and the result was totally opposite.
I do note that there was a consensus at NIR SIG and also at AMM.
However, the consensus at NIR SIG and AMM can be reversed if there are substantial objections. That is the whole point on having the comment period.
Even though consensus is reached at the meeting, substantial objections on the mailing list is an indication that not enough discussions took place at the meeting.
I hope this helps to clarify things for you.
Izumi Okutani
Izumi and all,
Well your remarks comments below did not clarify anything regarding consensus or if a consensus on this proposal exists or existed. In fact, your remarks and/or comments only further confused or obviscated if a consensus existed on this proposal, and what constitutes a consensus and how such is determined.
If you cannot tell or know how many participants are on this forum how can a consensus be determined with any degree of accuracy? Or even if you did know such, how do you know for a certantity if a consensus, general, rough or otherwise exists? How is such determined? Is it just your best guess, or what exactly?
As I recall there was much and many objection to this proposal...
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Dear Chanki,
I've been participating and monitoring this policy developing process, and I would like to point out some of the errors for our future process. This is my personal view, and it has nothing to do with my company. Your comments are welcomed.
First, the decision making of chair. Before the decision was announced, there were internal debate among some of NIR members regarding the meaning of "substantial objection". Is 4:4:1(against: : for : conditional) opinions that were submitted during public comment period substantial objection? Some member asked for more time to have discussion on the validity of objections and discuss more if they were substantial objection. However, the chair ignored some members opinion and send final decision.(My feeling toward this action is the chair lost its neutral position and was pushing toward predetermined course.) Sending final announcement while debates were going on is definitely wrong.
It was exactly for keeping the neutral position that I went ahead with the annoucement. For an open and fair process, it would not be proper for the Chair to discuss consensus with the proposer before making the announcement in order to maintain impartiality. The Chair must consider the situation of the whole community, as well as the proposer.
In making the consensus decision, Chair discusses with the Co-Chair and decides whether there was a consensus on the proposal or not.
The Chair and the Co-Chair may chose to consult other parties and take in the advice, but the final decision is their choice. I have discussed this matter with David, and also informally with some other SIG chair/co-chair, and the decision was made as a result of this.
Specially without defining the meaning of "substantial objection" and without discussing if the objections raised were valid and
substantial. (How
can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?)
I understand that you have a different view about "substantial objection" from me, and I have discussed this with you so many times.
Your arguement about 4 objections out of 1,000 members is valid if the membership vote was taken. In that case, I agree with your point.
Since we are not taking a vote here, and since it is a consensus based decision, it is not simply counting the number of comments for vs the number of comments against.
The whole idea of this process is to reach a general agreement through discussions, so the content of the discussions is an important factor in making the decision. As you can see from the state of the mailing list, we are still having very active discussions over this.
Mailing list discussions are not suitable for counting numbers because not all 1,000 members subscribe to the mailing list and you really never know how many of them are actually active. If you want to count the numbers, voting is more effective, which certainly could be an option. Perhaps, you can make a proposal at the next meeting if you prefer that kind of process.
The reality is, for this particular proposal, we are following the consensus based decision making process, not the membership vote. So, I have followed the logics based on this process in making my decision.
Second, the decision of chair. The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I mentioned earlier, the chair only observed public comment period and concluded that "There is no clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of AMM. If the chair is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't, and the result was totally opposite.
I do note that there was a consensus at NIR SIG and also at AMM.
However, the consensus at NIR SIG and AMM can be reversed if there are substantial objections. That is the whole point on having the comment period.
Even though consensus is reached at the meeting, substantial objections on the mailing list is an indication that not enough discussions took place at the meeting.
I hope this helps to clarify things for you.
Izumi Okutani
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
Regards,
-- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
Dear Jeff,
As observing many debate in the list so far, I listed few things that people concern regarding the SIG decision making : 1 Who make decision : Chair / Co-Chair 2 When : 8 Weeks after AMM 3 What is consensus : An opinion or position reached by a group (I re-use Philip's definition) 4 How to decide (methodology): There is no official policy document addressed that. If one argue something wrong in the PDP or Chair/Co-Chair decision, then we should convey the requirements into the policy document, which provide the public a transparant and legitimate guiding principle. I personally appreciate that if we can start working on the practice. APNIC21 call for proposal was announced, I certainly welcome you can enlighten a better way to improve the process.
Best Regards
Kenny Huang Chair, Policy SIG huangk@alum.sinica.edu
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Williams Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 6:23 PM To: Izumi Okutani Cc: sig-nir@lists.apnic.net; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decisionofPROP-028-v001
Izumi and all,
Well your remarks comments below did not clarify anything regarding consensus or if a consensus on this proposal exists or existed. In fact, your remarks and/or comments only further confused or obviscated if a consensus existed on this proposal, and what constitutes a consensus and how such is determined.
If you cannot tell or know how many participants are on this forum how can a consensus be determined with any degree of accuracy? Or even if you did know such, how do you know for a certantity if a consensus, general, rough or otherwise exists? How is such determined? Is it just your best guess, or what exactly?
As I recall there was much and many objection to this proposal...
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Dear Chanki,
I've been participating and monitoring this policy developing process, and I would like to point out some of the errors for our future process. This is my personal view, and it has nothing to do with
my company.
Your comments are welcomed.
First, the decision making of chair. Before the decision was announced, there were internal debate among some of NIR members regarding the meaning of "substantial objection". Is 4:4:1(against: : for : conditional) opinions that were submitted during public comment period substantial objection? Some member asked for more time to have discussion on the validity of objections and discuss more if they were substantial objection. However, the chair ignored some members opinion and send final decision.(My feeling toward this action is the chair lost its neutral position and was pushing toward predetermined course.) Sending final announcement
while debates were going on is definitely wrong.
It was exactly for keeping the neutral position that I went ahead with the annoucement. For an open and fair process, it would not be proper for the Chair to discuss consensus with the proposer before making the announcement in order to maintain impartiality. The Chair must consider the situation of the whole community, as well as the proposer.
In making the consensus decision, Chair discusses with the Co-Chair and decides whether there was a consensus on the proposal or not.
The Chair and the Co-Chair may chose to consult other parties and take in the advice, but the final decision is their choice. I have discussed this matter with David, and also informally with some other SIG chair/co-chair, and the decision was made as a result of this.
Specially without defining the meaning of "substantial objection" and without discussing if the objections raised were valid and
substantial. (How
can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?)
I understand that you have a different view about "substantial objection" from me, and I have discussed this with you so many times.
Your arguement about 4 objections out of 1,000 members is valid if the membership vote was taken. In that case, I agree with your point.
Since we are not taking a vote here, and since it is a consensus based decision, it is not simply counting the number of comments for vs the number of comments against.
The whole idea of this process is to reach a general agreement through discussions, so the content of the discussions is an important factor in making the decision. As you can see from the state of the mailing list, we are still having very active discussions over this.
Mailing list discussions are not suitable for counting numbers because not all 1,000 members subscribe to the mailing list and you really never know how many of them are actually active. If you want to count the numbers, voting is more effective, which certainly could be an option. Perhaps, you can make a proposal at the next meeting if you prefer that kind of process.
The reality is, for this particular proposal, we are following the consensus based decision making process, not the membership vote. So, I have followed the logics based on this process in making my decision.
Second, the decision of chair. The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I mentioned earlier, the chair only observed public comment period and concluded that "There is no clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of AMM. If the chair is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't, and the result was totally opposite.
I do note that there was a consensus at NIR SIG and also at AMM.
However, the consensus at NIR SIG and AMM can be reversed if there are substantial objections. That is the whole point on having the comment period.
Even though consensus is reached at the meeting, substantial objections on the mailing list is an indication that not enough discussions took place at the meeting.
I hope this helps to clarify things for you.
Izumi Okutani
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
Regards,
-- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
* 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
Kenny and all,
Very briefly, the suggestion I have and have had for many years is that if a consensus is sought for any proposal, that consensus MUST be measurable if such is to be declaired.
This would require that those in which such proposals effect have open and unfettered access to forums ect. in which such proposals are discussed, such as this one. Those of course that do not decide to participate do not do so for reasons that are of their own determination of reasons that may not necessarily be known.
Kenny Huang wrote:
Dear Jeff,
As observing many debate in the list so far, I listed few things that people concern regarding the SIG decision making : 1 Who make decision : Chair / Co-Chair 2 When : 8 Weeks after AMM 3 What is consensus : An opinion or position reached by a group (I re-use Philip's definition) 4 How to decide (methodology): There is no official policy document addressed that. If one argue something wrong in the PDP or Chair/Co-Chair decision, then we should convey the requirements into the policy document, which provide the public a transparant and legitimate guiding principle. I personally appreciate that if we can start working on the practice. APNIC21 call for proposal was announced, I certainly welcome you can enlighten a better way to improve the process.
Best Regards
Kenny Huang Chair, Policy SIG huangk@alum.sinica.edu
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Williams Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 6:23 PM To: Izumi Okutani Cc: sig-nir@lists.apnic.net; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decisionofPROP-028-v001
Izumi and all,
Well your remarks comments below did not clarify anything regarding consensus or if a consensus on this proposal exists or existed. In fact, your remarks and/or comments only further confused or obviscated if a consensus existed on this proposal, and what constitutes a consensus and how such is determined.
If you cannot tell or know how many participants are on this forum how can a consensus be determined with any degree of accuracy? Or even if you did know such, how do you know for a certantity if a consensus, general, rough or otherwise exists? How is such determined? Is it just your best guess, or what exactly?
As I recall there was much and many objection to this proposal...
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Dear Chanki,
I've been participating and monitoring this policy developing process, and I would like to point out some of the errors for our future process. This is my personal view, and it has nothing to do with
my company.
Your comments are welcomed.
First, the decision making of chair. Before the decision was announced, there were internal debate among some of NIR members regarding the meaning of "substantial objection". Is 4:4:1(against: : for : conditional) opinions that were submitted during public comment period substantial objection? Some member asked for more time to have discussion on the validity of objections and discuss more if they were substantial objection. However, the chair ignored some members opinion and send final decision.(My feeling toward this action is the chair lost its neutral position and was pushing toward predetermined course.) Sending final announcement
while debates were going on is definitely wrong.
It was exactly for keeping the neutral position that I went ahead with the annoucement. For an open and fair process, it would not be proper for the Chair to discuss consensus with the proposer before making the announcement in order to maintain impartiality. The Chair must consider the situation of the whole community, as well as the proposer.
In making the consensus decision, Chair discusses with the Co-Chair and decides whether there was a consensus on the proposal or not.
The Chair and the Co-Chair may chose to consult other parties and take in the advice, but the final decision is their choice. I have discussed this matter with David, and also informally with some other SIG chair/co-chair, and the decision was made as a result of this.
Specially without defining the meaning of "substantial objection" and without discussing if the objections raised were valid and
substantial. (How
can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?)
I understand that you have a different view about "substantial objection" from me, and I have discussed this with you so many times.
Your arguement about 4 objections out of 1,000 members is valid if the membership vote was taken. In that case, I agree with your point.
Since we are not taking a vote here, and since it is a consensus based decision, it is not simply counting the number of comments for vs the number of comments against.
The whole idea of this process is to reach a general agreement through discussions, so the content of the discussions is an important factor in making the decision. As you can see from the state of the mailing list, we are still having very active discussions over this.
Mailing list discussions are not suitable for counting numbers because not all 1,000 members subscribe to the mailing list and you really never know how many of them are actually active. If you want to count the numbers, voting is more effective, which certainly could be an option. Perhaps, you can make a proposal at the next meeting if you prefer that kind of process.
The reality is, for this particular proposal, we are following the consensus based decision making process, not the membership vote. So, I have followed the logics based on this process in making my decision.
Second, the decision of chair. The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I mentioned earlier, the chair only observed public comment period and concluded that "There is no clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of AMM. If the chair is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't, and the result was totally opposite.
I do note that there was a consensus at NIR SIG and also at AMM.
However, the consensus at NIR SIG and AMM can be reversed if there are substantial objections. That is the whole point on having the comment period.
Even though consensus is reached at the meeting, substantial objections on the mailing list is an indication that not enough discussions took place at the meeting.
I hope this helps to clarify things for you.
Izumi Okutani
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
Regards,
-- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
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
Regards,
-- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
Activity Summary
- 6501 days inactive
- 6501 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 8 participants
- 20 comments