Re: [sig-policy] Consensus Measurement

To: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Consensus Measurement
From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 09:41:28 +0100
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lpnz.org; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=b/ND4NfJq6qWxawoDzvt/RsGkJ+m5uQUDWz5Bksl07Q=; b=MZvWLtuFyCJFRhdSQz1KyVfA6BkgE4EhgFTtNk/u9U+lfKYtwt4PheHyru7g1PnQm0 2e9lnnTVqquEgwbVc7Jqv2OL5dTp5+W0ilK44tmdO0Om7EXZ5W1hawZhqcARhz1/vE+X MXHoZW5syTj3olwUmcUGXfmaMc5XueEUBehKs=
In-reply-to: <CAEUfUGOW99mDB8x01qU7u4c0P2cnjqgt2BZM_GXEBeHVzwSeXg at mail dot gmail dot com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com> wrote:

All,

I support Izumi in this concern.

I agree that electronic measurement is a good idea... BUT, yes, people will think it is a vote. ÂIf the Chairs go against this 'vote', people will get grumpy and there will be all sorts of issues... especially when a vote is close.

If a "vote" is close, it's highly, highly unlikely that consensus has been reached. And that's no different from where we are now with the show of hands. I believe that we have a problem with the process right now in that we get policy decided by at best a couple of dozen people in the Policy SIG meeting. There are sometimes more than that present but if you take away all the RIR staff then that's really the number making the call.

I've had at least one Open Policy Meeting during my term where I thought long and hard about saying "there aren't enough people here to be able to say that this represents the 'Internet community' in the Asia Pacific region".

Of course, you can argue that consensus is based on the opinions of "those who care" (http://www.ietf.org/tao.html) but I'd argue that's valid when you have a large number of people who care - as in the IETF.

Some meetings ago, Randy proposed that we should dispense with the current policy process - we didn't agree on that but I have no doubt that the process we have now needs to change. There is a real risk that decisions on policy are made by those who can afford to turn up to the Open Policy Meeting.

So let's look at using electronic measurement in some form to empower remote participants - my bet is there'll be a very small number.