Re: [sig-policy] Consensus Measurement
Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts. It's helpful to know there
are a few others who share the same concern.
I think this can actually be addressed by what I suggested.
In general, I think this is a good initiative to support wider
participation in the process, with also helping the Chair to get the
sense of room in the course of the discussions.
I also agree this is just one method on how to get a fee of the people
and doesn't change to overall process nor meaning of the consensus.
Show of hands/humming.e-cosensus, whatever we use, as long as it's
clearly explained how they will be taken into account in the context of
consensus buidling, it doesn't really matter what tool we use.
So Andy/Masato, if you could confirm below, it would clear my concerns:
1) When there is a big difference in discussions and positions
expressed by e-consensus, Chair/Co-Chair will not only judge based
on e-consensus (which is what we do today)
2) Describe consensus more explicitly than we do today both during
Policy SIG and on Policy Development Website
2) Ensure ways to confirm who expressed what opinion, in case there is
big difference in what was discussed and expression of position
through e-consensus
(if this can be done by registration and chair/co-chair can follow
up if necessary, that is fine)
I trust they will addressed be from reading between the lines of your
e-mails but it is still helpful to have a clear message and confirmation.
I am happy to support trying this for the next meeting if it is clear
and confirmed they will be addressed.Thanks!
Izumi
(2014/05/21 17:41), Andy Linton wrote:
> 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. If 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.
>
>
>
> * 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
>