Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear Community,
I am sending this letter at the best wishes for future stable growth and peaceful discussion.
My colleague David proposed the policy No Need in APNIC region. The discussion went fairly well, until a point when Adam rose up and declared that the CONFER system was being gamed, he was clearly and understandably emotional.
But, in the manner he did that, as the company who are proposing the policy ware receiving overwhelming support in the CONFER system at the time he made the declaration, understandably putting us the top suspect for gaming the system.
This is not acceptable, and admittedly, it makes me emotionally unhappy, David is making a policy proposal to try to improve certain aspect of IP pool management for the whole APNIC community and it is now implied that he is part of a rigged policy making process.
This clearly is not good for us or for anyone else.
I had words with APNIC staff shortly after the session closed, and got further accusations to be part of gaming the system, which further aggravated me, now the accusation was direct.
While I point out that the amount of people supporting the policy wasn’t just 3 or 4 in the room, one of APNIC Staff said direct to my face that he does not believe me, as I was lying, while I suggesting we can go to the hallway and confront people who ware just supported the policy during the process to future confirm the actually number of support, to check the fact of each of our claim. he simply asked me to get out of his face, literally, “get out of my face”.
As a member of this community and regular attendee to the meetings, I will have to say the behavior of staff was less than acceptable, accusations thrown in like this must be backed up or you just destroy someone's reputation without any proof!
If the system was being gamed, it must be announced in a manner that put no one in doubt.
If the system was simply less than perfect, works not as intended, it should simply be announced as a trial run and we need to fix the system.
In any case, accusation that serious, or even doubt that serious(as Adam was ask me directly if I gamed the system), need to be backed with hard solicit evidence.
Both as company and individual, we value our reputation in the community dearly, we are trying to contribute to the community not in our own interest, but in the interest of many, before we proposed the policy, we have discussed it with many members of APNIC, friends in the community, that many of them think it is a good path to move forward with.
While waiting for the solicit evidence the system was gamed to absolutely clear our name and reputation, I would like ask APNIC being future careful in implementing such less than perfect system for such sensitive discussion.
Dear David, I strongly support this policy, so how`s this policy going on ? Anyone can tell me ?
Best Regards,
Ernest TsePacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.// Web: http://www.pacswitch.com// Tel: +852-21570550//Mobile: +852-62536678//Skype: codesixs On Wed, 01/03/2017 18.50, Lu Heng h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
Dear Community,
I am sending this letter at the best wishes for future stable growth and peaceful discussion.
My colleague David proposed the policy No Need in APNIC region. The discussion went fairly well, until a point when Adam rose up and declared that the CONFER system was being gamed, he was clearly and understandably emotional.
But, in the manner he did that, as the company who are proposing the policy ware receiving overwhelming support in the CONFER system at the time he made the declaration, understandably putting us the top suspect for gaming the system.
This is not acceptable, and admittedly, it makes me emotionally unhappy, David is making a policy proposal to try to improve certain aspect of IP pool management for the whole APNIC community and it is now implied that he is part of a rigged policy making process.
This clearly is not good for us or for anyone else.
I had words with APNIC staff shortly after the session closed, and got further accusations to be part of gaming the system, which further aggravated me, now the accusation was direct.
While I point out that the amount of people supporting the policy wasn’t just 3 or 4 in the room, one of APNIC Staff said direct to my face that he does not believe me, as I was lying, while I suggesting we can go to the hallway and confront people who ware just supported the policy during the process to future confirm the actually number of support, to check the fact of each of our claim. he simply asked me to get out of his face, literally, “get out of my face”.
As a member of this community and regular attendee to the meetings, I will have to say the behavior of staff was less than acceptable, accusations thrown in like this must be backed up or you just destroy someone's reputation without any proof!
If the system was being gamed, it must be announced in a manner that put no one in doubt.
If the system was simply less than perfect, works not as intended, it should simply be announced as a trial run and we need to fix the system.
In any case, accusation that serious, or even doubt that serious(as Adam was ask me directly if I gamed the system), need to be backed with hard solicit evidence.
Both as company and individual, we value our reputation in the community dearly, we are trying to contribute to the community not in our own interest, but in the interest of many, before we proposed the policy, we have discussed it with many members of APNIC, friends in the community, that many of them think it is a good path to move forward with.
While waiting for the solicit evidence the system was gamed to absolutely clear our name and reputation, I would like ask APNIC being future careful in implementing such less than perfect system for such sensitive discussion.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Colleagues
Yesterday during the Policy SIG session, it became quite apparent to everyone in the room that the CONFER system was indicating community sentiments that were significantly at odds with the sentiments and discussions taking place within the room.
This discrepancy appeared with the first policy proposal during the session, and continued throughout the Policy SIG discussions.
During the presentation of Policy prop--118, additional information came to APNIC Secretariat’s attention, giving it sufficient probative value to support APNIC Secretariat’s assertion that the CONFER system was being misused; and that it was no longer a reliable indicator of the community’s sentiment on policy proposals.
No correlation was asserted or implied that the people behind the misuse of the CONFER system were connected with the people proposing prop-118. Your misplaced belief to the contrary is regrettable.
Our preliminary investigation has revealed that of the total 48 people participating on CONFER during the sessions yesterday, twenty-one participants used generic email addresses to participate, and a number of these addresses appear suspicious. A full list of those suspicious participants (and the number of times each participated on CONFER during the sessions yesterday) appear below.
Our investigations are continuing.
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding your misplaced belief that you or your organisation was implicated in the misuse of CONFER, it is never acceptable for aggressive, intimidating or abusive behaviour towards APNIC staff (or anyone else, for that matter) during an APNIC event.
There are many avenues available to you to make complaints: you can write to the APNIC Director-General, or the APNIC Executive Council. Indeed, you are free to raise any concerns with any APNIC staff, but you need to do so in a calm and respectful manner.
As I explained to you after the Policy SIG session, APNIC conferences are workplaces for APNIC staff and many delegates, all of whom are entitled to a safe workplace free from bullying, harassment or abuse. When you raise your voice at APNIC staff, and use aggressive gestures within close proximity towards APNIC staff, I believe that APNIC staff are fully entitled to let you know that you are invading their personal space, and to ask you to step away.
APNIC supports and expects a safe and inclusive environment during its meetings, where respectful and courteous discussions can take place. Please see APNIC’s Community Code of Conduct available here: https://www.apnic.net/events/apnic-community-code-of-conduct/.
APNIC will reveal further information about the misuse of the CONFER system when they become available.
________________________________________
Craig Ng
General Counsel, APNIC
e: craig@apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3152
m: +61 416 052 022
www.apnic.net
* 1 164800843@qq.com
* 1 18501153217@163.com
* 1 472014849@qq.com
* 1 478756983@qq.com
* 1 5672602@qq.com
* 1 792202889@qq.com
* 1 998412357@qq.com
* 1 e@qq.com
* 1 hh@qq.com
* 1 jj@qq.com
* 2 2152384@qq.com
* 2 425426781@qq.com
* 2 475100176@qq.com
* 2 506307082@qq.com
* 2 890145786@qq.com
* 2 97421506@qq.com
* 2 c@qq.com
* 2 d@qq.com
* 3 280548565@qq.com
* 3 284257715@qq.com
* 3 45430166@qq.com
On 1/3/17, 5:50 pm, "sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Lu Heng" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Dear Community,
I am sending this letter at the best wishes for future stable growth and peaceful discussion.
My colleague David proposed the policy No Need in APNIC region. The discussion went fairly well, until a point when Adam rose up and declared that the CONFER system was being gamed, he was clearly and understandably emotional.
But, in the manner he did that, as the company who are proposing the policy ware receiving overwhelming support in the CONFER system at the time he made the declaration, understandably putting us the top suspect for gaming the system.
This is not acceptable, and admittedly, it makes me emotionally unhappy, David is making a policy proposal to try to improve certain aspect of IP pool management for the whole APNIC community and it is now implied that he is part of a rigged policy making process.
This clearly is not good for us or for anyone else.
I had words with APNIC staff shortly after the session closed, and got further accusations to be part of gaming the system, which further aggravated me, now the accusation was direct.
While I point out that the amount of people supporting the policy wasn’t just 3 or 4 in the room, one of APNIC Staff said direct to my face that he does not believe me, as I was lying, while I suggesting we can go to the hallway and confront people who ware just supported the policy during the process to future confirm the actually number of support, to check the fact of each of our claim. he simply asked me to get out of his face, literally, “get out of my face”.
As a member of this community and regular attendee to the meetings, I will have to say the behavior of staff was less than acceptable, accusations thrown in like this must be backed up or you just destroy someone's reputation without any proof!
If the system was being gamed, it must be announced in a manner that put no one in doubt.
If the system was simply less than perfect, works not as intended, it should simply be announced as a trial run and we need to fix the system.
In any case, accusation that serious, or even doubt that serious(as Adam was ask me directly if I gamed the system), need to be backed with hard solicit evidence.
Both as company and individual, we value our reputation in the community dearly, we are trying to contribute to the community not in our own interest, but in the interest of many, before we proposed the policy, we have discussed it with many members of APNIC, friends in the community, that many of them think it is a good path to move forward with.
While waiting for the solicit evidence the system was gamed to absolutely clear our name and reputation, I would like ask APNIC being future careful in implementing such less than perfect system for such sensitive discussion.
Dear Community:
Craig’s email opens as a community email addressing “Colleagues”, but later on the tone changes as he is not referring to me but addressing me by changing to “you” and “your organisation”
Logic of the whole event was, APNIC staff’s comment during prop-118 could be misunderstood as implying publicly Larus Cloud Service was gaming the CONFER system during our colleague's presentation, when I confronted them with that after the session closed, I was asked directly in private if we did it.
According to my reading of the Email of Craig, such behaviour is acceptable for APINIC staff. And the company or individual they are defaming have no rights to be angry, because the reputation of the individual or the company does not matter, the volume of the voice is more important than serious accusation or doubt made by APINIC staff.
We value our reputation dearly, we value the community dearly, and bottom up process, community based policy development process are the core parts to the very existence of the RIR system, CONFER being a larger step forward towards more inclusive community, that would allow people who don't speak English well to express their opinion as well as others, are an important step both for the community as well as for APINIC.
That is the reason, assuring anyone abuse the very core system of the community, is accusing someone manipulate the consensus process, it is the most serious crime you can accuse someone for in this community.
And because of the seriousness, naturally we feel emotionally angry, and while we trying to explain, however we thereafter being confronted by APNIC staff with direct doubt and accusation of being liar, I am human, raise the volume of my voice while I made the complaint to the staff's boss, was the very least I can do.
We hope for an open transparent community, fairly treating everyone, not because community give someone power, that someone can bully community member at personal will.
I have told my story to Paul Wilson and Gaurab Raj, and already admitted in my first email I was emotional, however, what we do not accept is that APNIC is implying a member's serious wrong doing without evidence, that is not considered as the source of these emotions being released and just brushed away.
As we all little man, we are nobody, but we elect people to power positions for our own good, not for them to use that power against us.
On 2 March 2017 at 11:04, Craig Ng craig@apnic.net wrote:
Colleagues
Yesterday during the Policy SIG session, it became quite apparent to everyone in the room that the CONFER system was indicating community sentiments that were significantly at odds with the sentiments and discussions taking place within the room.
This discrepancy appeared with the first policy proposal during the session, and continued throughout the Policy SIG discussions.
During the presentation of Policy prop--118, additional information came to APNIC Secretariat’s attention, giving it sufficient probative value to support APNIC Secretariat’s assertion that the CONFER system was being misused; and that it was no longer a reliable indicator of the community’s sentiment on policy proposals.
No correlation was asserted or implied that the people behind the misuse of the CONFER system were connected with the people proposing prop-118. Your misplaced belief to the contrary is regrettable.
Our preliminary investigation has revealed that of the total 48 people participating on CONFER during the sessions yesterday, twenty-one participants used generic email addresses to participate, and a number of these addresses appear suspicious. A full list of those suspicious participants (and the number of times each participated on CONFER during the sessions yesterday) appear below.
Our investigations are continuing.
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding your misplaced belief that you or your organisation was implicated in the misuse of CONFER, it is never acceptable for aggressive, intimidating or abusive behaviour towards APNIC staff (or anyone else, for that matter) during an APNIC event.
There are many avenues available to you to make complaints: you can write to the APNIC Director-General, or the APNIC Executive Council. Indeed, you are free to raise any concerns with any APNIC staff, but you need to do so in a calm and respectful manner.
As I explained to you after the Policy SIG session, APNIC conferences are workplaces for APNIC staff and many delegates, all of whom are entitled to a safe workplace free from bullying, harassment or abuse. When you raise your voice at APNIC staff, and use aggressive gestures within close proximity towards APNIC staff, I believe that APNIC staff are fully entitled to let you know that you are invading their personal space, and to ask you to step away.
APNIC supports and expects a safe and inclusive environment during its meetings, where respectful and courteous discussions can take place. Please see APNIC’s Community Code of Conduct available here: https://www.apnic.net/events/apnic-community-code-of-conduct/.
APNIC will reveal further information about the misuse of the CONFER system when they become available.
Craig Ng
General Counsel, APNIC
e: craig@apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3152 <+61%207%203858%203152>
m: +61 416 052 022 <+61%20416%20052%20022>
www.apnic.net
1 164800843@qq.com
1 18501153217@163.com
1 472014849@qq.com
1 478756983@qq.com
1 5672602@qq.com
1 792202889@qq.com
1 998412357@qq.com
1 e@qq.com
1 hh@qq.com
1 jj@qq.com
2 2152384@qq.com
2 425426781@qq.com
2 475100176@qq.com
2 506307082@qq.com
2 890145786@qq.com
2 97421506@qq.com
2 c@qq.com
2 d@qq.com
3 280548565@qq.com
3 284257715@qq.com
3 45430166@qq.com
On 1/3/17, 5:50 pm, "sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Lu Heng" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Dear Community,
I am sending this letter at the best wishes for future stable growth and peaceful discussion.
My colleague David proposed the policy No Need in APNIC region. The discussion went fairly well, until a point when Adam rose up and declared that the CONFER system was being gamed, he was clearly and understandably emotional.
But, in the manner he did that, as the company who are proposing the policy ware receiving overwhelming support in the CONFER system at the time he made the declaration, understandably putting us the top suspect for gaming the system.
This is not acceptable, and admittedly, it makes me emotionally unhappy, David is making a policy proposal to try to improve certain aspect of IP pool management for the whole APNIC community and it is now implied that he is part of a rigged policy making process.
This clearly is not good for us or for anyone else.
I had words with APNIC staff shortly after the session closed, and got further accusations to be part of gaming the system, which further aggravated me, now the accusation was direct.
While I point out that the amount of people supporting the policy wasn’t just 3 or 4 in the room, one of APNIC Staff said direct to my face that he does not believe me, as I was lying, while I suggesting we can go to the hallway and confront people who ware just supported the policy during the process to future confirm the actually number of support, to check the fact of each of our claim. he simply asked me to get out of his face, literally, “get out of my face”.
As a member of this community and regular attendee to the meetings, I will have to say the behavior of staff was less than acceptable, accusations thrown in like this must be backed up or you just destroy someone's reputation without any proof!
If the system was being gamed, it must be announced in a manner that put no one in doubt.
If the system was simply less than perfect, works not as intended, it should simply be announced as a trial run and we need to fix the system.
In any case, accusation that serious, or even doubt that serious(as Adam was ask me directly if I gamed the system), need to be backed with hard solicit evidence.
Both as company and individual, we value our reputation in the community dearly, we are trying to contribute to the community not in our own interest, but in the interest of many, before we proposed the policy, we have discussed it with many members of APNIC, friends in the community, that many of them think it is a good path to move forward with.
While waiting for the solicit evidence the system was gamed to absolutely clear our name and reputation, I would like ask APNIC being future careful in implementing such less than perfect system for such sensitive discussion.
Dear all, Just want the clarify that, my company is support this policy. Is it still keep discuss at the next meeting or what ? And also, will APNIC to develop a better online vote system in the next meeting for voting this policy ?
Best Regards,
Ernest TsePacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.// Web: http://www.pacswitch.com// Tel: +852-21570550//Mobile: +852-62536678//Skype: codesixs On Thu, 02/03/2017 16.25, Lu Heng h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
Dear Community:
Craig’s email opens as a community email addressing “Colleagues”, but later on the tone changes as he is not referring to me but addressing me by changing to “you” and “your organisation”
Logic of the whole event was, APNIC staff’s comment during prop-118 could be misunderstood as implying publicly Larus Cloud Service was gaming the CONFER system during our colleague's presentation, when I confronted them with that after the session closed, I was asked directly in private if we did it.
According to my reading of the Email of Craig, such behaviour is acceptable for APINIC staff. And the company or individual they are defaming have no rights to be angry, because the reputation of the individual or the company does not matter, the volume of the voice is more important than serious accusation or doubt made by APINIC staff.
We value our reputation dearly, we value the community dearly, and bottom up process, community based policy development process are the core parts to the very existence of the RIR system, CONFER being a larger step forward towards more inclusive community, that would allow people who don't speak English well to express their opinion as well as others, are an important step both for the community as well as for APINIC.
That is the reason, assuring anyone abuse the very core system of the community, is accusing someone manipulate the consensus process, it is the most serious crime you can accuse someone for in this community.
And because of the seriousness, naturally we feel emotionally angry, and while we trying to explain, however we thereafter being confronted by APNIC staff with direct doubt and accusation of being liar, I am human, raise the volume of my voice while I made the complaint to the staff's boss, was the very least I can do.
We hope for an open transparent community, fairly treating everyone, not because community give someone power, that someone can bully community member at personal will.
I have told my story to Paul Wilson and Gaurab Raj, and already admitted in my first email I was emotional, however, what we do not accept is that APNIC is implying a member's serious wrong doing without evidence, that is not considered as the source of these emotions being released and just brushed away.
As we all little man, we are nobody, but we elect people to power positions for our own good, not for them to use that power against us.
On 2 March 2017 at 11:04, Craig Ng craig@apnic.net wrote:
Colleagues
Yesterday during the Policy SIG session, it became quite apparent to everyone in the room that the CONFER system was indicating community sentiments that were significantly at odds with the sentiments and discussions taking place within the room.
This discrepancy appeared with the first policy proposal during the session, and continued throughout the Policy SIG discussions.
During the presentation of Policy prop--118, additional information came to APNIC Secretariat’s attention, giving it sufficient probative value to support APNIC Secretariat’s assertion that the CONFER system was being misused; and that it was no longer a reliable indicator of the community’s sentiment on policy proposals.
No correlation was asserted or implied that the people behind the misuse of the CONFER system were connected with the people proposing prop-118. Your misplaced belief to the contrary is regrettable.
Our preliminary investigation has revealed that of the total 48 people participating on CONFER during the sessions yesterday, twenty-one participants used generic email addresses to participate, and a number of these addresses appear suspicious. A full list of those suspicious participants (and the number of times each participated on CONFER during the sessions yesterday) appear below.
Our investigations are continuing.
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding your misplaced belief that you or your organisation was implicated in the misuse of CONFER, it is never acceptable for aggressive, intimidating or abusive behaviour towards APNIC staff (or anyone else, for that matter) during an APNIC event.
There are many avenues available to you to make complaints: you can write to the APNIC Director-General, or the APNIC Executive Council. Indeed, you are free to raise any concerns with any APNIC staff, but you need to do so in a calm and respectful manner.
As I explained to you after the Policy SIG session, APNIC conferences are workplaces for APNIC staff and many delegates, all of whom are entitled to a safe workplace free from bullying, harassment or abuse. When you raise your voice at APNIC staff, and use aggressive gestures within close proximity towards APNIC staff, I believe that APNIC staff are fully entitled to let you know that you are invading their personal space, and to ask you to step away.
APNIC supports and expects a safe and inclusive environment during its meetings, where respectful and courteous discussions can take place. Please see APNIC’s Community Code of Conduct available here: https://www.apnic.net/events/apnic-community-code-of-conduct/.
APNIC will reveal further information about the misuse of the CONFER system when they become available.
________________________________________ Craig Ng General Counsel, APNIC e: craig@apnic.net p: +61 7 3858 3152 m: +61 416 052 022 www.apnic.net
* 1 164800843@qq.com * 1 18501153217@163.com * 1 472014849@qq.com * 1 478756983@qq.com * 1 5672602@qq.com * 1 792202889@qq.com * 1 998412357@qq.com * 1 e@qq.com * 1 hh@qq.com * 1 jj@qq.com * 2 2152384@qq.com * 2 425426781@qq.com * 2 475100176@qq.com * 2 506307082@qq.com * 2 890145786@qq.com * 2 97421506@qq.com * 2 c@qq.com * 2 d@qq.com * 3 280548565@qq.com * 3 284257715@qq.com * 3 45430166@qq.com
On 1/3/17, 5:50 pm, "sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Lu Heng" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Dear Community, I am sending this letter at the best wishes for future stable growth and peaceful discussion. My colleague David proposed the policy No Need in APNIC region. The discussion went fairly well, until a point when Adam rose up and declared that the CONFER system was being gamed, he was clearly and understandably emotional. But, in the manner he did that, as the company who are proposing the policy ware receiving overwhelming support in the CONFER system at the time he made the declaration, understandably putting us the top suspect for gaming the system. This is not acceptable, and admittedly, it makes me emotionally unhappy, David is making a policy proposal to try to improve certain aspect of IP pool management for the whole APNIC community and it is now implied that he is part of a rigged policy making process.
This clearly is not good for us or for anyone else.
I had words with APNIC staff shortly after the session closed, and got further accusations to be part of gaming the system, which further aggravated me, now the accusation was direct.
While I point out that the amount of people supporting the policy wasn’t just 3 or 4 in the room, one of APNIC Staff said direct to my face that he does not believe me, as I was lying, while I suggesting we can go to the hallway and confront people who ware just supported the policy during the process to future confirm the actually number of support, to check the fact of each of our claim. he simply asked me to get out of his face, literally, “get out of my face”. As a member of this community and regular attendee to the meetings, I will have to say the behavior of staff was less than acceptable, accusations thrown in like this must be backed up or you just destroy someone's reputation without any proof! If the system was being gamed, it must be announced in a manner that put no one in doubt. If the system was simply less than perfect, works not as intended, it should simply be announced as a trial run and we need to fix the system. In any case, accusation that serious, or even doubt that serious(as Adam was ask me directly if I gamed the system), need to be backed with hard solicit evidence. Both as company and individual, we value our reputation in the community dearly, we are trying to contribute to the community not in our own interest, but in the interest of many, before we proposed the policy, we have discussed it with many members of APNIC, friends in the community, that many of them think it is a good path to move forward with. While waiting for the solicit evidence the system was gamed to absolutely clear our name and reputation, I would like ask APNIC being future careful in implementing such less than perfect system for such sensitive discussion.
Hi All,
Even though I'm out-going Chair, let me raise a couple of important points since it seems many Community members forgot or are ignoring them as too heated-up now.
Firstly, Our Policy Development Process is based on "Consensus", NOT "Voting" as clearly described in APNIC corporate document and web site.
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-devel... https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/process/policy-development-process/
Then, Sec 5.1 of SIG guideline shows basic steps to ask consensus, criteria to decide whether the proposal reached consensus, and how to address objections. Since it is long text, let me refer most important part. (Please see https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines/ for full text)
2. 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.*
As you can see, in case of major objections, it doesn't mention the possibility of "cannot overcome". While no further text, it means all major objections have to be addressed to reach consensus by implications. So, if somebody would scam CONFER (or even show-of-hands) somehow, a proposal may not reach to consensus if major objections are raised and cannot be addressed. However, in real, people are arguing # of supporters instead of considering objections. Lastly, in both of minor/major objections case, SIG guideline asks participants including proponents and dissenters to work together as we can address the proponents' problem as well as the dissenters' objections. However, in these days, such co-working is very few and it is very sad situation for me.
Regards, Matt
2017-03-02 1:27 GMT-08:00 Ernest Tse ernest.tse@pacswitch.com:
Dear all,
Just want the clarify that, my company is support this policy. Is it still keep discuss at the next meeting or what ? And also, will APNIC to develop a better online vote system in the next meeting for voting this policy ?
Best Regards,
Ernest Tse Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd. // Web: http://www.pacswitch.com // Tel: +852-21570550 <+852%202157%200550> //Mobile: +852-62536678 <+852%206253%206678> //Skype: codesixs
On Thu, 02/03/2017 16.25, Lu Heng h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
Dear Community:
Craig’s email opens as a community email addressing “Colleagues”, but later on the tone changes as he is not referring to me but addressing me by changing to “you” and “your organisation”
Logic of the whole event was, APNIC staff’s comment during prop-118 could be misunderstood as implying publicly Larus Cloud Service was gaming the CONFER system during our colleague's presentation, when I confronted them with that after the session closed, I was asked directly in private if we did it.
According to my reading of the Email of Craig, such behaviour is acceptable for APINIC staff. And the company or individual they are defaming have no rights to be angry, because the reputation of the individual or the company does not matter, the volume of the voice is more important than serious accusation or doubt made by APINIC staff.
We value our reputation dearly, we value the community dearly, and bottom up process, community based policy development process are the core parts to the very existence of the RIR system, CONFER being a larger step forward towards more inclusive community, that would allow people who don't speak English well to express their opinion as well as others, are an important step both for the community as well as for APINIC.
That is the reason, assuring anyone abuse the very core system of the community, is accusing someone manipulate the consensus process, it is the most serious crime you can accuse someone for in this community.
And because of the seriousness, naturally we feel emotionally angry, and while we trying to explain, however we thereafter being confronted by APNIC staff with direct doubt and accusation of being liar, I am human, raise the volume of my voice while I made the complaint to the staff's boss, was the very least I can do.
We hope for an open transparent community, fairly treating everyone, not because community give someone power, that someone can bully community member at personal will.
I have told my story to Paul Wilson and Gaurab Raj, and already admitted in my first email I was emotional, however, what we do not accept is that APNIC is implying a member's serious wrong doing without evidence, that is not considered as the source of these emotions being released and just brushed away.
As we all little man, we are nobody, but we elect people to power positions for our own good, not for them to use that power against us.
On 2 March 2017 at 11:04, Craig Ng craig@apnic.net wrote:
Colleagues
Yesterday during the Policy SIG session, it became quite apparent to everyone in the room that the CONFER system was indicating community sentiments that were significantly at odds with the sentiments and discussions taking place within the room.
This discrepancy appeared with the first policy proposal during the session, and continued throughout the Policy SIG discussions.
During the presentation of Policy prop--118, additional information came to APNIC Secretariat’s attention, giving it sufficient probative value to support APNIC Secretariat’s assertion that the CONFER system was being misused; and that it was no longer a reliable indicator of the community’s sentiment on policy proposals.
No correlation was asserted or implied that the people behind the misuse of the CONFER system were connected with the people proposing prop-118. Your misplaced belief to the contrary is regrettable.
Our preliminary investigation has revealed that of the total 48 people participating on CONFER during the sessions yesterday, twenty-one participants used generic email addresses to participate, and a number of these addresses appear suspicious. A full list of those suspicious participants (and the number of times each participated on CONFER during the sessions yesterday) appear below.
Our investigations are continuing.
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding your misplaced belief that you or your organisation was implicated in the misuse of CONFER, it is never acceptable for aggressive, intimidating or abusive behaviour towards APNIC staff (or anyone else, for that matter) during an APNIC event.
There are many avenues available to you to make complaints: you can write to the APNIC Director-General, or the APNIC Executive Council. Indeed, you are free to raise any concerns with any APNIC staff, but you need to do so in a calm and respectful manner.
As I explained to you after the Policy SIG session, APNIC conferences are workplaces for APNIC staff and many delegates, all of whom are entitled to a safe workplace free from bullying, harassment or abuse. When you raise your voice at APNIC staff, and use aggressive gestures within close proximity towards APNIC staff, I believe that APNIC staff are fully entitled to let you know that you are invading their personal space, and to ask you to step away.
APNIC supports and expects a safe and inclusive environment during its meetings, where respectful and courteous discussions can take place. Please see APNIC’s Community Code of Conduct available here: https://www.apnic.net/events/apnic-community-code-of-conduct/.
APNIC will reveal further information about the misuse of the CONFER system when they become available.
Craig Ng
General Counsel, APNIC
e: craig@apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3152
m: +61 416 052 022
www.apnic.net
1 164800843@qq.com
1 18501153217@163.com
1 472014849@qq.com
1 478756983@qq.com
1 5672602@qq.com
1 792202889@qq.com
1 998412357@qq.com
1 e@qq.com
1 hh@qq.com
1 jj@qq.com
2 2152384@qq.com
2 425426781@qq.com
2 475100176@qq.com
2 506307082@qq.com
2 890145786@qq.com
2 97421506@qq.com
2 c@qq.com
2 d@qq.com
3 280548565@qq.com
3 284257715@qq.com
3 45430166@qq.com
On 1/3/17, 5:50 pm, "sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Lu Heng" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Dear Community,
I am sending this letter at the best wishes for future stable growth and peaceful discussion.
My colleague David proposed the policy No Need in APNIC region. The discussion went fairly well, until a point when Adam rose up and declared that the CONFER system was being gamed, he was clearly and understandably emotional.
But, in the manner he did that, as the company who are proposing the policy ware receiving overwhelming support in the CONFER system at the time he made the declaration, understandably putting us the top suspect for gaming the system.
This is not acceptable, and admittedly, it makes me emotionally unhappy, David is making a policy proposal to try to improve certain aspect of IP pool management for the whole APNIC community and it is now implied that he is part of a rigged policy making process.
This clearly is not good for us or for anyone else.
I had words with APNIC staff shortly after the session closed, and got further accusations to be part of gaming the system, which further aggravated me, now the accusation was direct.
While I point out that the amount of people supporting the policy wasn’t just 3 or 4 in the room, one of APNIC Staff said direct to my face that he does not believe me, as I was lying, while I suggesting we can go to the hallway and confront people who ware just supported the policy during the process to future confirm the actually number of support, to check the fact of each of our claim. he simply asked me to get out of his face, literally, “get out of my face”.
As a member of this community and regular attendee to the meetings, I will have to say the behavior of staff was less than acceptable, accusations thrown in like this must be backed up or you just destroy someone's reputation without any proof!
If the system was being gamed, it must be announced in a manner that put no one in doubt.
If the system was simply less than perfect, works not as intended, it should simply be announced as a trial run and we need to fix the system.
In any case, accusation that serious, or even doubt that serious(as Adam was ask me directly if I gamed the system), need to be backed with hard solicit evidence.
Both as company and individual, we value our reputation in the community dearly, we are trying to contribute to the community not in our own interest, but in the interest of many, before we proposed the policy, we have discussed it with many members of APNIC, friends in the community, that many of them think it is a good path to move forward with.
While waiting for the solicit evidence the system was gamed to absolutely clear our name and reputation, I would like ask APNIC being future careful in implementing such less than perfect system for such sensitive discussion.
--
Kind regards. Lu
- sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Craig,
Thank you for the reply.
Yesterday during the Policy SIG session, it became quite apparent to
everyone in the room that the CONFER system was >indicating community sentiments that were significantly at odds with the sentiments and discussions taking place within >the room.
This discrepancy appeared with the first policy proposal during the
session, and continued throughout the Policy SIG >discussions.
I hope that we can get to the bottom of this and that the Chair can decide how to proceed in the future and that we don't need the general counsel in policy matters as it is not really the proper way.
I now also really do hope that these listed account were indeed just fake accounts just to abuse CONFER, as I am not sure about the listing their accounts details in an archived public mailing-list.
QQ is very common, I have a QQ ID it is also just a bunch of numbers, and from what I know it is used to register yourself with a lot of services in China.
I had to have one once I started working for a Chinese company.
They are also traceable by anyone who has QQ, they seem to be real QQ accounts some over a decade old from what I found.
If they are the real people behind the accounts, you just publicly declared them fake and abusive for just showing interest in the policy process and making use of the remote system in place.
And I can very well see non English speaker making use of such a simple system to show their opinion.
If they are real accounts and being abused by someone who is gaming the system, again, those are potentially real accounts that are traceable for anyone and they have just been declared to be scammers while they have nothing to do with this whole incident and probably have never even heard of APNIC.
So unless the accounts are 100% fake accounts, I don't believe they should had been published like that on the list without any obfuscation.
David Hilario
*IP Manager*
*Larus Cloud Service Limited*
p: +852 29888918 <+852%202988%208918> m: +359 89 764 1784 <+359%2089%20764%201784> f: +852 29888068 <+852%202988%208068> a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.net/uk e: d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net d.hilario@outsideheaven.com
On 2 March 2017 at 06:04, Craig Ng craig@apnic.net wrote:
Colleagues
Yesterday during the Policy SIG session, it became quite apparent to everyone in the room that the CONFER system was indicating community sentiments that were significantly at odds with the sentiments and discussions taking place within the room.
This discrepancy appeared with the first policy proposal during the session, and continued throughout the Policy SIG discussions.
During the presentation of Policy prop--118, additional information came to APNIC Secretariat’s attention, giving it sufficient probative value to support APNIC Secretariat’s assertion that the CONFER system was being misused; and that it was no longer a reliable indicator of the community’s sentiment on policy proposals.
No correlation was asserted or implied that the people behind the misuse of the CONFER system were connected with the people proposing prop-118. Your misplaced belief to the contrary is regrettable.
Our preliminary investigation has revealed that of the total 48 people participating on CONFER during the sessions yesterday, twenty-one participants used generic email addresses to participate, and a number of these addresses appear suspicious. A full list of those suspicious participants (and the number of times each participated on CONFER during the sessions yesterday) appear below.
Our investigations are continuing.
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding your misplaced belief that you or your organisation was implicated in the misuse of CONFER, it is never acceptable for aggressive, intimidating or abusive behaviour towards APNIC staff (or anyone else, for that matter) during an APNIC event.
There are many avenues available to you to make complaints: you can write to the APNIC Director-General, or the APNIC Executive Council. Indeed, you are free to raise any concerns with any APNIC staff, but you need to do so in a calm and respectful manner.
As I explained to you after the Policy SIG session, APNIC conferences are workplaces for APNIC staff and many delegates, all of whom are entitled to a safe workplace free from bullying, harassment or abuse. When you raise your voice at APNIC staff, and use aggressive gestures within close proximity towards APNIC staff, I believe that APNIC staff are fully entitled to let you know that you are invading their personal space, and to ask you to step away.
APNIC supports and expects a safe and inclusive environment during its meetings, where respectful and courteous discussions can take place. Please see APNIC’s Community Code of Conduct available here: https://www.apnic.net/events/apnic-community-code-of-conduct/.
APNIC will reveal further information about the misuse of the CONFER system when they become available.
Craig Ng
General Counsel, APNIC
e: craig@apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3152 <+61%207%203858%203152>
m: +61 416 052 022 <+61%20416%20052%20022>
www.apnic.net
On 1/3/17, 5:50 pm, "sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Lu Heng" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Dear Community,
I am sending this letter at the best wishes for future stable growth and peaceful discussion.
My colleague David proposed the policy No Need in APNIC region. The discussion went fairly well, until a point when Adam rose up and declared that the CONFER system was being gamed, he was clearly and understandably emotional.
But, in the manner he did that, as the company who are proposing the policy ware receiving overwhelming support in the CONFER system at the time he made the declaration, understandably putting us the top suspect for gaming the system.
This is not acceptable, and admittedly, it makes me emotionally unhappy, David is making a policy proposal to try to improve certain aspect of IP pool management for the whole APNIC community and it is now implied that he is part of a rigged policy making process.
This clearly is not good for us or for anyone else.
I had words with APNIC staff shortly after the session closed, and got further accusations to be part of gaming the system, which further aggravated me, now the accusation was direct.
While I point out that the amount of people supporting the policy wasn’t just 3 or 4 in the room, one of APNIC Staff said direct to my face that he does not believe me, as I was lying, while I suggesting we can go to the hallway and confront people who ware just supported the policy during the process to future confirm the actually number of support, to check the fact of each of our claim. he simply asked me to get out of his face, literally, “get out of my face”.
As a member of this community and regular attendee to the meetings, I will have to say the behavior of staff was less than acceptable, accusations thrown in like this must be backed up or you just destroy someone's reputation without any proof!
If the system was being gamed, it must be announced in a manner that put no one in doubt.
If the system was simply less than perfect, works not as intended, it should simply be announced as a trial run and we need to fix the system.
In any case, accusation that serious, or even doubt that serious(as Adam was ask me directly if I gamed the system), need to be backed with hard solicit evidence.
Both as company and individual, we value our reputation in the community dearly, we are trying to contribute to the community not in our own interest, but in the interest of many, before we proposed the policy, we have discussed it with many members of APNIC, friends in the community, that many of them think it is a good path to move forward with.
While waiting for the solicit evidence the system was gamed to absolutely clear our name and reputation, I would like ask APNIC being future careful in implementing such less than perfect system for such sensitive discussion.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
I hope that we can get to the bottom of this
seems to me it hit the bottom some messages back.
time to pretend we work for a living.
randy
Dear all,
I'd like to conclude the issue surrounding the testing of CONFER at the last policy SIG meeting in Ho Chi Minh City, that caused a complaint to be raised at the AGM and on this mailing list, particularly in relation to the discussion on prop-118.
APNIC has reviewed the CONFER server logs during the time of that discussion. In that period, 14 CONFER users with "qq.com" email addresses connected to the service from a single IP address registered to a data centre operator in USA. We don't intend to pursue this any further, but it is clear that the ease of participating in CONFER has raised doubts about the quality of its results.
If CONFER is to be used in future, it seems that some improvements will be needed, and the APNIC Secretariat would be glad to hear the advice of the community on that.
But again, as Masato has kindly reminded us all, reaching consensus isn't about seeking majority of 'support/strongly support'. It's also about making sure that major objections of a policy proposal get aired, discussed, and resolved. Sumon has announced the return of prop-118 for discussion on the mailing list, before another consensus call is made.
Regarding the other events which were raised on the sig-policy mailing list, the APNIC Secretariat has considered all accounts and I wish to note the following:
* APNIC staff announced to the room that the CONFER system was not being used in good faith. No direct accusation was made nor intended. * A decision was made by the SIG chairs to disregard CONFER's result. The fact that this decision was made during the prop-118 discussion had no bearing on the outcome of the consensus call. * Immediately after the session, two of APNIC's policy staff were approached by a Member who expressed regret that this CONFER incident may have reflected badly on the proposal's authors. APNIC Secretariat has not found any evidence that substantiate this, and asks the community to make no such inference. * The APNIC Secretariat believes that the SIG Chairs and APNIC's policy staff diligently carried out the responsibilities of their roles under unexpected conditions, and made their decisions in what they believed to be in the best interests of the community. * APNIC has redacted an individual's name from the March archive of the Policy SIG mailing list.
In moving forward please remember that we're all here to work together for a better Internet, and difference of opinions are to be expected, and discussed in an open, respectful debate.
Thank you!
Sanjaya Deputy Director General, APNIC https://www.apnic.net
Activity Summary
- 2365 days inactive
- 2365 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 7 participants
- 8 comments