Re: [sig-policy] Consensus Measurement
Let me add one more point.
Since the consensus is vital part of our PDP, don't we need to describe it
in PDP document, not in SIG guideline?
Rgs,
Masato
On 14/05/27 21:06, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote:
>Yamanishi-san, all,
>
>
>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-gu
>>id
>> 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
>>
>