Re: [sig-policy] Consensus Measurement
Thanks for your feedback Yamanishi-san.
Describing consensus more clearly - I am happy to work on it. Since
there is already an IETF document, we can perhaps use it as the basis
rather than defining from scratch?
Clarifying who expressesd what opinion
> However, since it is specific issue for e-consensus, we can discuss this
> point more during the trial.
Sure. I think credibility of what is expressed through e-consensus is
important when it is not visible to others. If this can be ensured, I am
open to hear other ideas.
Izumi
(2014/05/28 12:21), Masato Yamanishi wrote:
> Izumi and All,
>
> Sorry for late reply.
>
>> 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)
>
> I can confirm it, but please also see my comments for next point.
>
>
>> 2) Describe consensus more explicitly than we do today both during
>> Policy SIG and on Policy Development Website
>
> I think these points are not only for e-consensus but also applicable for
> current "show of hands"
> since your have a concern about a description of "consensus" itself.
>
> As of today, what we have as written text is only Section 5.1 in SIG
> guideline,
> (https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/join-discussions/sigs/sig-guid
> elines.pdf).
>
> It says;
>
> The show of hands is not a vote. It is a way of broadly gauging
> opinion.
>
> and also;
>
> If there are objections, the Chair can ask the dissenters to decide if
> their objections are:
>
> i. Minor objections
> If the proposal goes forward, the dissenters believe that some
> problems may occur for some members in the group.
> The participants should work together to see if the proposal can be
> modified to overcome these minor objections.
> However, it is not always possible to overcome these objections. If
> this is the case, the Chair should ask the dissenters
> if they are prepared to acknowledge that the overall advantages of
> the proposal outweigh their objections
> and if the dissenters are willing to stand aside.
>
> ii. Major objections
> If the proposal goes forward, the dissenters believe that major
> problems will occur for parts of the community
> and that the proposal cannot be adopted in its current format.
>
> The Chair should devote sufficient time for participants to discuss
> ways to overcome major objections.
> As in the case of minor objections, participants, including the
> proponent, should work together
> to develop solutions that overcome the objections.
>
>
> I am doubt current description is enough, but Chairs cannot add or modify
> SIG guideline by the sole discretion.
> So, can you or somebody suggest better description if we will set a
> community consultation in next meeting?
>
>
>> 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)
>
> Under current PDP and SIG guideline, I'm not sure Chairs nor the
> Secretariat have an authority to investigate
> each community member's favor even if it was expressed anonymously.
> And also, I'm afraid some community members may not want to give such
> authority to Chairs nor the Secretariat.
> However, since it is specific issue for e-consensus, we can discuss this
> point more during the trial.
>
> Rgs,
> Masato
>
>
>
>
>
> On 14/05/23 4:16, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> * 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
>