[sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6pe
> > "The announced chair's final decision contains serious error and
> > it should be fixed."
> This is an interesting discussion, however, there is no
> "serious error"
> as you put it.
> For a sense of perspective, I would urge everyone to re-read the APNIC
> policy development process at:
> In particular, step 4 answers the very question being thrown around in
> this thread. Ie. When is consensus confirmed?
> Please read the following carefully, as it is lifted from the APNIC
> policy development process linked to above:
> "Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial
> objections raised during the "comment period". 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....... If it is observed that there have been
> "substantial objections" raised to the proposed policy, consensus is
> not confirmed and the proposal will not be implemented."
> According to the APNIC policy development process, it doesn't
> matter if
> there was consensus at any previous stage of the process, substantial
> objections in the final comment period must lead to a decision by the
> SIG Chair that there is no consensus.
> Substantial objections HAVE been raised, nobody can deny this.
> As per the documented policy development process, Izumi-san has quite
> rightly declared that consensus has not been reached, and this policy
> will not proceed in its current form.
> As it stands, according to APNIC policy, this proposal cannot proceed
> and should not be considered by the EC, as we cannot proceed to step 5
> in the policy development process.
> If you disagree, then you should propose a change to the policy
> development process at the next APNIC meeting.
> I hope this clarifies the situation.
I can agree with some of you points, but not all.
I agree with making modification on the policy
development process, and some of the points above.
However, the two mistakes I pointed out still needs to be investigated.