Re: [sig-policy] Consensus Measurement
Thank you for taking your time to explain,
I got the impression we discussed most of the points in Warsaw last week
so I am slightly confused what you think I misunderstand.
Never the less, it is still helpful to see this summary and for sharing
with others, so thank you.
1)-3): I agree.
My concern is e-consensus system may be more easily confused as an
electric voting.
I hope 1)-3) will be clearly explained to participants before consensus
process of a proposal. May I assume this would be the case?
I found the link shared by Randy helpful.
4): Thank you for clarifying this.
This was something I wanted to understand.
Between my last e-mail and now, I have an additional understanding that
this can also potentially help, for example, to shape discussions onsite
by Chair/Co-Chair before consensus questions to get a feel of the room
and better shape direction of discussions. This would be an interesting
use and I would support trying this initiatvive more proactively .
Izumi
(2014/05/20 11:52), Masato Yamanishi wrote:
> Izumi,
>
> Thank you for raising your concern.
>
> I'm afraid many of your concerns come from misunderstanding,
> let me clarify current Chairs' understanding for the e-consensus system.
>
> 1. As same as traditional "showing hands", it is one of factors when
> deciding the consensus
> As we did in past, Chairs will also consider,
> - Discussion on the mailing list
> - Discussion in the meeting
> Also, Chairs may ask the reason if there are some oppositions, and
> consider those reasons
> when deciding the consensus.
>
> 2. The questions and choices are configurable on demand
> It is NOT binary (nor ternary) choice. Normally, we present 5
> choices, which are
> Strongly support/Support/Neutral/Oppose/Strongly Oppose, but actually
> the question and options
> are configurable on demand. So, chairs may set additional questions,
> like
> "if this point is modified, what do you think?", or "which do you
> prefer original one or modified one?",
> or add more options, like "I can't live with (or without) this".
> And these changes can be made during the session as we did in past
> "showing hands".
>
> 3. It is NOT voting
> As mentioned above, it is just one of factors in deciding the
> consensus while voting is final result.
> Also, the Secretariat and Chairs are trying to find good way to show
> the results
> since showing the numbers is not good idea apparently.
>
> 4. Registration is required
> While current chat system doesn't require any registration, this
> e-consensus will require registration.
> However, we need to consider the level of verification during
> registration,
> since strict verification may have negative impact for our openness.
>
>
> 5. Next few meetings will be a trial
> Chairs will ask the consensus by both ways (showing hands and
> e-consensus system),
> and compare results to measure its advantage and disadvantage, in
> particular following aspects.
> - Does the number of participants increase or decrease?
> - Does the e-consensus system show same results as traditional
> "showing hands" or different?
> - Does the anonymousness of e-consensus system have negative impact
> for further discussion?
> - Is it possible to cheat easily?
>
> Also, please consider that current chat system may not be enough as a tool
> asking consensus to remote participants.
> When we had remote hubs, we normally saw 20-30 remote participants and
> many of them participated in the consensus.
> However, now we are seeing just 1 or 2 support or opposition through the
> chat in last few meetings.
>
> It is very appreciated if you could share any idea or thoughts to improve
> it.
>
> Rgs,
> Masato Yamanishi
> Policy SIG co-chair
>
>
>
>
> On 14/05/15 8:35, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> I have a few comments about the idea discussed in Policy SIG at APNIC37
>> about replacing show of hands with pressing buttons online.
>>
>> Consensus Measurement
>> https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/community-consultation-on-consensus-m
>> easurement_1393475895.pdf
>>
>> These are the points I discussed with my colleagues in JPNIC and
>> would be interested to hear from the Secretariat, Chair/Co-Chair and
>> others on this list.
>>
>>
>> * Support the motivation of encouraging more participation from remote
>> participants.
>>
>> * On the other hand, we have some concerns as below:
>>
>> - Less transparency in the process
>> - Consensus is not voting but pressing buttons but may encourage
>> misunderstanding
>> - Anonymous voting may allow multiple voting per person
>>
>> * Suggestions:
>> - Ensure Chair/Co-Chair will not only make decisions based on button
>> pressed results but consider the contents of discussions in making
>> consensus decisions. (As it is today)
>>
>> - Clearly explain the above, and pressing the button is not voting:
>> on APNIC's PDP webpage and at Policy SIG by Chair/Co-Chair
>>
>> - Identity of who pressed what button must be trackable.
>> At least, Chair/Co-Chair and the secretariat should be able to
>> identify and track who pressued and expressed what opinion.
>> This is to reduce the risk of multiple voting by a single person,
>> and allow Chair/Co-Chair to clarify the intention with indivisual(s)
>> if necessary.
>>
>> * Question:
>> I heard the secretariat is preparing to try this from the next meeting.
>> If this is true, how would this work in APNIC38:
>> Would the next Policy SIG totally be based on button pressing including
>> those at the venue?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Izumi/JPNIC
>> * 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
>
>
> * 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
>