RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingI
> 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
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
> > 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
> > 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
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.