Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Hi all,
- Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
- What is the meaning of "consensus"?
- What is the importance of "8 week comment period"? (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during comment period.)
Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision was published that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your detailed reasoning on the decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members, I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
I already explained my reasoning on the mailing list, but if there is anything unclear about it, I'd be happy to explain further. Save has already provided us with the citation, so I will skip this.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/archive/2005/11/msg00001.html
There were many alternative way to deal with this situation instead of declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal." ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide postpone the announcement and have open discussion with the people who objects and so forth...
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
Izumi
Chanki Park wrote:
Hi,
Dear all,
There are some different opinions regarding this decisions.
It's a procedural matter.
Procedural matter? Can you explain what you mean by this?
Sure,
The [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs" proposal went through the following steps.
The proposal was drafted by NIR community and discussed on NIR SIG M/L.
The proposal was discussed at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- We had a few objections, but consensus was reached among NIR members.
NIR SIG Chair reported at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- There were a few objections, but the consensus was also reached.
The proposal is went through 8 weeks comments period.
- We had four objections.
At this point, split opinions were observed : Some says four objection is good enough to declare "There is no consensus", and some says "four objections during comment period is not good enough to declare no consensus"
- Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
- What is the meaning of "consensus"?
- What is the importance of "8 week comment period"? (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during comment period.)
Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision was published that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your detailed reasoning on the decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members, I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
If not, I think we have to pause here and build a new process. (I looked at the APNIC policy process, there is no process if final announcement goes into discussion)
There were many alternative way to deal with this situation instead of declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal." ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide postpone the announcement and have open discussion with the people who objects and so forth...
Some people are getting together to discuss and decide what should be proper way to proceed.
Ah. So in the APNIC Open Policy process, the NIRs operate in secret, making decisions behind closed doors, and then presenting those decisions to the world. How very open...
Why can't the discussion happen on this mailing list?? That's what it's for!? As far as I remember, several ideas had been presented, so why are the NIRs afraid to discuss these ideas in public?
I am not sure if NIRs had ever operated in secret. At first, just like any other policy proposal, only a few people who are interested got together drafted the proposal based on their discussion. However, after that things went open, discussed on open NIR SIG M/L as well as face to face APNIC Open Policy Meeting. We followed APNIC policy development process. If you look at the APNIC web site, it's there.
We can get back with wise answer, I hope.
No one can achieve wisdom when existing in isolation.
Now I am seeking members wisdom openly, will it do? :)
Regards,
Chanki Park
philip
Regards,
Chanki Park
Dear All,
Regarding [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs", I would like to conclude that although strong support was expressed from a few members of the community, there is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
Thank you all for participating in the discussions.
Observations:
There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR
APNIC members)
Major comments:
- It is not fair for the rest of the membership to abolish
the fee just for NIRs
- NIRs are proposing to abolish the fee because the current fee structure is not fair for the NIRs
- Questions were raised over why it needs to be dealt with
immediately rather than waiting until the new fee structure takes place
- It does not make sense as business practice to abolish
the existing
fee structure without a replacement plan. The proposal cannnot be supported unless there is a replacement on the fee structure, or substitute the financial loss
Conclusion:
There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
Reasons:
- Points which have not been addressed at the meeting was
raised on the mailing list which implies no enough discussions took place at the meeting
- Those who have expressed support for the proposal are the
proposers,
or those who benefit from the proposal.
- Only unsupportive comments were expressed from those who do not
benefit from this proposal. One support was expressed
conditionally,
but this condition was not met.
- Proposer has not responded to suggestions expressed by
those who were opposed to the proposal. (the proposer does not need to take in the suggestions but
should be
able to explain why their proposal is better than the suggestions, or suggestions would not solve the issue they face)
Side Note:
The needs of the proposer can be acknowledged, but the proposal needs to be more agreeable to the rest of the APNIC community.
Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani and David Chen
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
if i can be of help, i am willing
randy
Hi Izumi-san,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 24/11/05 12:30:
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
I'd be delighted to. I fully understand the original motivation of the proposal, but the proposed solution had a financial impact on APNIC. A solution which has no financial impact on APNIC would set a better precedent, otherwise we could end up with a situation which Randy described earlier.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
That's a good idea, I'd be happy to participate if you'd find that at all useful.
philip --
Great, how do the NIRs feel about this?
Would you like to work closely on the proposal by setting up a working group? If yes, we can call for the volunteers publicly from the whole community.
Izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi-san,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 24/11/05 12:30:
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
I'd be delighted to. I fully understand the original motivation of the proposal, but the proposed solution had a financial impact on APNIC. A solution which has no financial impact on APNIC would set a better precedent, otherwise we could end up with a situation which Randy described earlier.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
That's a good idea, I'd be happy to participate if you'd find that at all useful.
philip
Dear all,
It's David. It's a good idea, I agree to initial a working group to work out results.
David
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Great, how do the NIRs feel about this?
Would you like to work closely on the proposal by setting up a working group? If yes, we can call for the volunteers publicly from the whole community.
Izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi-san,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 24/11/05 12:30:
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
I'd be delighted to. I fully understand the original motivation of the proposal, but the proposed solution had a financial impact on APNIC. A solution which has no financial impact on APNIC would set a better precedent, otherwise we could end up with a situation which Randy described earlier.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
That's a good idea, I'd be happy to participate if you'd find that at all useful.
philip
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Great, how do the NIRs feel about this?
Let's correct a mistake first.
Then let's discuss what to do.
Regards,
Chanki
Would you like to work closely on the proposal by setting up a working group? If yes, we can call for the volunteers publicly from the whole community.
Izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi-san,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 24/11/05 12:30:
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over
this particular
proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the
decision, and I
felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
I'd be delighted to. I fully understand the original
motivation of the
proposal, but the proposed solution had a financial impact
on APNIC. A
solution which has no financial impact on APNIC would set a better precedent, otherwise we could end up with a situation which Randy described earlier.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
That's a good idea, I'd be happy to participate if you'd
find that at
all useful.
philip
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Let's correct a mistake first.
Then let's discuss what to do.
Okay, if you feel more comforatable to wait for the EC's decision first, that's fine.
Regards, Izumi
Chanki Park wrote:
Great, how do the NIRs feel about this?
Let's correct a mistake first.
Then let's discuss what to do.
Regards,
Chanki
Would you like to work closely on the proposal by setting up a working group? If yes, we can call for the volunteers publicly from the whole community.
Izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi-san,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 24/11/05 12:30:
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over
this particular
proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the
decision, and I
felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
I'd be delighted to. I fully understand the original
motivation of the
proposal, but the proposed solution had a financial impact
on APNIC. A
solution which has no financial impact on APNIC would set a better precedent, otherwise we could end up with a situation which Randy described earlier.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
That's a good idea, I'd be happy to participate if you'd
find that at
all useful.
philip
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi all,
- Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
- What is the meaning of "consensus"?
- What is the importance of "8 week comment period"? (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during
comment period.)
Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision
was published
that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your
detailed reasoning on
the decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members, I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
I already explained my reasoning on the mailing list, but if there is anything unclear about it, I'd be happy to explain further. Save has already provided us with the citation, so I will skip this.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/archive/2005/11/msg 00001.html
I looked at above reasoning again.
It contains a SERIOUS flaw. Let me explain why...
Quoting from above announcement
<snip> Observations: ------------- There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)
<snip>
Conclusion: ----------- There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
-end of quotation-
The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period because the observation is only that narrow period. (The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were totally ignored) BIG MISTAKE!!!
So the conclusion had to be something like this :
Reasoning 1. The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting. 2. The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting. 3. It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during 8 week comment period. "There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal. 4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)"
conclusion There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but consensus has been reached.
Comments are welcomed on above observations.
IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through proper steps with consensus. (There were some chances to proposal, but it went through as it is now)
Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
It should be reported to APNIC EC for the final approval, isn't it?
There were many alternative way to deal with this situation
instead of
declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal." ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide postpone the announcement and have open discussion with the people who objects and so forth...
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
Let's correct the mistake first, and then discuss what to do.
I am trying to correct mistakes, and while doing this I also reviewing APNIC policy development process. We may need to elaborate some of APNIC policy development process for the future.(I don't have a good idea yet.)
Regards,
Chanki
Hi Chanki,
The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period because the observation is only that narrow period. (The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were totally ignored) BIG MISTAKE!!!
According to my understanding of the process, the whole idea of having the final comment period on the mailing list is to confirm if it is really okay to go ahead with the meeting consensus. If there are substantial objections on the mailing list, the meeting consensus can be reversed.
So the conclusion had to be something like this :
Reasoning
- The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during 8 week comment
period. "There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this
proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)"
conclusion There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but consensus has been reached.
Comments are welcomed on above observations.
IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through proper steps with consensus. (There were some chances to proposal, but it went through as it is now)
Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
I understand you have a different opinion over whether the objections on the mailing list was "substantial", but this is just a difference in our opinions. I can't declare consensus when I believe more discussions are needed.
I'm sure your opinion on the mailing list will be reviewed by the EC too, so why don't we leave it upto the EC to make the final decision?
Regards, Izumi
Chanki Park wrote:
Hi all,
- Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
- What is the meaning of "consensus"?
- What is the importance of "8 week comment period"?
(The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during
comment period.)
Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision
was published
that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your
detailed reasoning on
the decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members, I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
I already explained my reasoning on the mailing list, but if there is anything unclear about it, I'd be happy to explain further. Save has already provided us with the citation, so I will skip this.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/archive/2005/11/msg 00001.html
I looked at above reasoning again.
It contains a SERIOUS flaw. Let me explain why...
Quoting from above announcement
<snip> Observations: ------------- There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)
<snip>
Conclusion:
There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
-end of quotation-
The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period because the observation is only that narrow period. (The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were totally ignored) BIG MISTAKE!!!
So the conclusion had to be something like this :
Reasoning
- The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during 8 week comment
period. "There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal. 4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)"
conclusion There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but consensus has been reached.
Comments are welcomed on above observations.
IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through proper steps with consensus. (There were some chances to proposal, but it went through as it is now)
Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
It should be reported to APNIC EC for the final approval, isn't it?
There were many alternative way to deal with this situation
instead of
declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal." ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide postpone the announcement and have open discussion with the people who objects and so forth...
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
Let's correct the mistake first, and then discuss what to do.
I am trying to correct mistakes, and while doing this I also reviewing APNIC policy development process. We may need to elaborate some of APNIC policy development process for the future.(I don't have a good idea yet.)
Regards,
Chanki
Hi Chanki,
The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period because the observation is only that narrow period. (The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were
totally ignored)
BIG MISTAKE!!!
According to my understanding of the process, the whole idea of having the final comment period on the mailing list is to confirm if it is really okay to go ahead with the meeting consensus. If there are substantial objections on the mailing list, the meeting consensus can be reversed.
Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial enough to reverse the process?
So the conclusion had to be something like this :
Reasoning
- The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during
8 week comment
period. "There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this
proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR
APNIC members)"
conclusion There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but
consensus has been
reached.
Comments are welcomed on above observations.
IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through proper steps with consensus. (There were some chances to proposal, but it went through
as it is now)
Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
I understand you have a different opinion over whether the objections on the mailing list was "substantial", but this is just a difference in our opinions. I can't declare consensus when I believe more discussions are needed.
You have to modify the announcement and declare it again. Because it contains SERIOUS LOGICAL error.
As I mentioned earlier you only observed small part but concluded in full, which means you only looked eyes but described whole face. There is no credence in that description.
Two errors have to be fixed. 1. The logical error(observing small part but concluding in full,) 2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1.
I'm sure your opinion on the mailing list will be reviewed by the EC too, so why don't we leave it upto the EC to make the final decision?
The proposal can not go to EC unless you withdraw your announcement and correct the mistake and publish.
Please, correct the mistakes.
Regards,
Chanki
Hi Chanki,
[...]
Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial enough to reverse the process?
1,000 members didn't participate in the discussions. Also, I don't think consensus can be judged just in terms of the numbers. As I menioned in my earlier mail, I have looked at the status of the discussions on the mailing list, and from the state of it, I judged that we need more discussions over this proposal. I totally understand that NIRs have problems with the IPv6 current fee scheme, and I'm not trying to ignore this.
All I am saying is let's have more discussions also with the people have expressed concerns over the proposal and come up with a way which is more agreeable to more people.
[...]
You have to modify the announcement and declare it again. Because it contains SERIOUS LOGICAL error.
As I mentioned earlier you only observed small part but concluded in full, which means you only looked eyes but described whole face. There is no credence in that description.
Two errors have to be fixed.
- The logical error(observing small part but concluding in full,)
- Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1.
I'm sure your opinion on the mailing list will be reviewed by the EC too, so why don't we leave it upto the EC to make the final decision?
The proposal can not go to EC unless you withdraw your announcement and correct the mistake and publish.
Please, correct the mistakes.
I've requested for the EC reviwed in my earlier mail, so let's wait to hear their position.
Izumi
Activity Summary
- 6578 days inactive
- 6578 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 5 participants
- 10 comments