Re: [sig-policy] 答复: 答复: prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
I'm not a co-chair, so I don't think my
opinion has any meaning whatsoever, but if
it means anything, I would like to say a word
or two about the situation right now.
I know what I'm doing is not right, but I can't help it.
I believe that APNIC's policy development process
states that a consensus is called at meetings and
just as you say, the 8week period on this mailing list
is for people who couldn't attend, or for people who have
second thoughts. This is very important and I think
somewhere around 20 people expressed their opinions and
concerns about this proposition.
If I remember correctly, there was one or two who said
prop-050 should not be. Most including me state that they are not against
prop-050 but request that a safeguard be put in place before
it goes into action.
That means that only one or two is objecting to prop050 itself.
There were hundreds of people who paid their air fares
and hotel fees and hundres of peso's to attend the meeting
and if a consesus were to be overthrown by just a few members
on the mailing list, what is the importance of an APNIC policy meeting
anyways?
The best thing to do, is to ask the EC to withold implementation
at least till the next APNIC meeting. That's what we all want.
We all want a safeguard for 050, and not to have it killed.
Sam has already pointed out to us that it will take at least
6 months, so this should not be a problem. We should discuss whether
to ask EC to proceed with the implementation or not at the next meeting,
but to call off consensus is nonsense. Please correct me if I'm wrong,
but if you stated a no consensus, won't we have to start all over again
with a new proposal? Is that really what the community wants?
Appologies, but let me be picky again.
> 'substantial objections' to prop-050, which cannot be consider a consensus.
There was consensus at the last APNIC meeting. It has been recorded officially.
What I believe you are doing, is calling off a consensus.
Seiichi
> Randy:
> Both Ching-heng and I sent email on our internal list specifically
> stated that we don't think consensus has been reached.
> But you ignored our comments and announced a consensus.
>
> I prefer more open communication instead of imposing opinion upon others
> too.
>
> Does people express serious concerns consistently cannot be considered
> 'objection'?
>
> The mailing-list is not a place for voting so people usually may not
> specifically say 'Objection ', but we can understand
> clearly from their messages.
>
> The 8 weeks comment period is for those who didn't have chance
> to express their opinion in the OPM meeting or was confused at
> the OPM meeting to have second chance to make their idea
> expressed clearly, also more communication helps people to clarify their
> point
> and helps people understand each other better.
>
> Those people expressed and defended their concerns consistently
> in each of their posts about the proposal, I would consider they
> object to the proposal.
>
> Those people like Andy and Seiichi, they only expressed some concern,
> they also expressed some supports in other posts, I wouldn't
> consider them as 'object to' the proposal .
>
> Since there are at least 5 people expressed serious concerns, I consider
> there are
> 'substantial objections' to prop-050, which cannot be consider a consensus.
>
> I certainly can see that there's significant community interest in the
> concept of transfers, and that with careful discussion, there might a
> significant chance of community to reach consensus in the future.
> Let's keep up our good work.
>
> Best regards
> Jian
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg dot com]
> 发送时间: 2009年5月20日 23:02
> 收件人: Zhang Jian
> 抄送: Ching-Heng; sig-policy
> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] 答复: prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
>
> hi juan,
>
>> As we discussed before in sig-chairs mailing list, Ching-heng and me as
>> co-chairs of policy sig, neither of us think consensus has been reached on
>> prop-050.
>
> well, firstly, the approval message sat on our internal list for over a
> day and you said nothing. so possibly a bit more could be done on our
> communication. i am an ops hacker and researcher, and am more used to
> open and direct communication than nir and admin infrastructure
> politicans may be.
>
> secondly, according to the policy development process, consensus was
> reached in manila. this mailing list period was to see if there were
> "substantial objections." please review the policy development process.
>
>> I have made a rough count. Totally 18 people made comments on this
> proposal
>> in mailing list, total 81 posts have been posted, there are 9 people have
>> serious concerns about this proposal, therefore I don't think consensus is
>> reached.
>
> people making comments is a positive thing. it is called community
> participation in the process. we do our best to encourage and support
> it.
>
> i for one hope that the discussion on the list will produce proposals
> and consensus to augment -50, but we failed to have consensus on them in
> manila. and failed consensus on ammendments to a proposal does not
> constitute either failed consensus on the proposal itself, nor does it
> constitute substantial objection to the proposal.
>
> and once again, this is not a voting process.
>
> you still confuse consensus with voting, concern with objection, etc.
> these things do not transit cultural boundaries well, and unfortunately,
> neither you nor ching-heng had the opportunity to be at the sig chairs'
> meetings where these aspects of process have been repeatedly discussed.
>
> as kawamura-san, andy, ... pointed out, they are concerned but not
> objecting. i share their concerns, but my proposal did not gain
> consensus in manila, and i am not a 'sore loser' who makes a fuss about
> process. we move ahead. perhaps others will succeed where i did not.
> we should support attempts at forward progress, not indulge in process
> arguments because we did not succeed.
>
> let us perform our jobs and move forward by helping those who are trying
> to build some safeguards on top of the substrate of prop-50.
>
> i appreciate your concerns, but the pdp is being followed, the consensus
> for the proposal was reached in manila. the list discussion has been
> one of the healthiest i have seen for a proposal, which does not imply
> substantial objection. the consensus is not overturned.
>
> regards,
> randy
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy