My concern is e-consensus system may be more easily confused as an
(2014/05/20 11:52), Masato Yamanishi wrote:
> 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
> Â Â Â As we did in past, Chairs will also consider,
> Â Â Â Â- Discussion on the mailing list
> Â Â Â Â- Discussion in the meeting
> Â Â Â Also, Chairs may ask the reason if there are some oppositions, and
> consider those reasons
> Â Â Â when deciding the consensus.
> 2. The questions and choices are configurable on demand
> Â Â Â It is NOT binary (nor ternary) choice. Normally, we present 5
> choices, which are
> Â Â Â Strongly support/Support/Neutral/Oppose/Strongly Oppose, but actually
> the question and options
> Â Â Â are configurable on demand. So, chairs may set additional questions,
> Â Â Â "if this point is modified, what do you think?", or "which do you
> prefer original one or modified one?",
> Â Â Â or add more options, like "I can't live with (or without) this".
> Â Â Â And these changes can be made during the session as we did in past
> "showing hands".
> 3. It is NOT voting
> Â Â Â As mentioned above, it is just one of factors in deciding the
> consensus while voting is final result.
> Â Â Â Also, the Secretariat and Chairs are trying to find good way to show
> the results
> Â Â Â since showing the numbers is not good idea apparently.
> 4. Registration is required
> Â Â Â While current chat system doesn't require any registration, this
> e-consensus will require registration.
> Â Â Â However, we need to consider the level of verification during
> Â Â Â since strict verification may have negative impact for our openness.
> 5. Next few meetings will be a trial
> Â Â Â Chairs will ask the consensus by both ways (showing hands and
> e-consensus system),
> Â Â Â and compare results to measure its advantage and disadvantage, in
> particular following aspects.
> Â Â Â Â - Does the number of participants increase or decrease?
> Â Â Â Â - Does the e-consensus system show same results as traditional
> "showing hands" or different?
> Â Â Â Â - Does the anonymousness of e-consensus system have negative impact
> for further discussion?
> Â Â Â Â - 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
> 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
>> 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
>> * On the other hand, we have some concerns as below:
>> Â - Less transparency in the process
>> Â - Consensus is not voting but pressing buttons but may encourage
>> Â Â misunderstanding
>> Â - Anonymous voting may allow multiple voting per person
>> * Suggestions:
>> Â - Ensure Chair/Co-Chair will not only make decisions based on button
>> Â Â pressed results but consider the contents of discussions in making
>> Â Â consensus decisions. (As it is today)
>> Â - Clearly explain the above, and pressing the button is not voting:
>> Â Â on APNIC's PDP webpage and at Policy SIG by Chair/Co-Chair
>> Â - Identity of who pressed what button must be trackable.
>> Â Â At least, Chair/Co-Chair and the secretariat should be able to
>> Â Â identify and track who pressued and expressed what opinion.
>> Â Â This is to reduce the risk of multiple voting by a single person,
>> Â Â and allow Chair/Co-Chair to clarify the intention with indivisual(s)
>> Â Â 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?
>> * Â Â Â Â Â Â Âsig-policy: ÂAPNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> Â Â *
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> * Â Â Â Â Â Â Âsig-policy: ÂAPNIC SIG on resource management policy Â Â Â Â Â *
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
* Â Â Â Â Â Â Âsig-policy: ÂAPNIC SIG on resource management policy Â Â Â Â Â *
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net