Hi,Answers to 1 & 2 below is described in the APNIC Policy Development Process document:
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.
3. What is the importance of "8 week comment period"?(The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during comment period.)
The 8-week comment period is an essential part of the process, for 2 reasons: to allow proper consideration of the decision of the meeting; and to allow people who have not attended the meeting to participate. The discussion on the mailing list has no more or less weight than the discussion in the meeting.
Regards, Save Vocea Policy Development Manager APNIC Secretariat On 23/11/2005, at 5:43 PM, 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 wentthrough the following steps.1) The proposal was drafted by NIR community and discussed on NIR SIG M/L.2) The proposal was discussed at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.* We had a few objections, but consensus was reached among NIR members.3) NIR SIG Chair reported at the APNIC Member Meeting. * There were a few objections, but the consensus was also reached. 4) 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 todeclare no consensus" 1. Can chair declare a decision under this situation? 2. What is the meaning of "consensus"? 3. 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 publishedthat "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...I am not sure if NIRs had ever operated in secret. At first, just like anySome 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?otherpolicy proposal, only a few people who are interested got together draftedthe 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 APNICpolicy 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 Parkphilip --Regards, Chanki ParkDear 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-NIRAPNIC 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 abolishthe existingfee 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 theproposers,or those who benefit from the proposal. + Only unsupportive comments were expressed from those who do not benefit from this proposal. One support was expressedconditionally,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 butshould beable 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 at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir_______________________________________________ sig-nir mailing list sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir