Hi again Satoru, all,
Answers below, in-line, and thank again for your contribution.
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-126,
based on a meeting we organised on 22nd Aug to discuss these proposals.
Many supporting opinions were expressed about the point of confirming consensus on ML.
A question of doubt and concern was expressed, in that it discontinues AMM consensus and changes the proposal's deadline.
(Consensus on ML)
- I support to take a consensus confirmation with ML instead of AMM.
- I support on the point of view that this proposal will expand the opportunities to the remote participant to discussing about proposal.
- For consensus confirmation in ML, only proposal which reached consensus in OPM are eligible and the proposal which not reached consensus are not eligible. it is not good to lose the opportunity to state a opinion at the ML about the proposal which not reach consensus.
Let me clarify this. I’m not suggesting a ML confirmation of the consensus. What I suggest is that it is discriminatory to look for consensus ONLY in the SIG, because there is many people not able to come to meetings and they are part of the community. So, what I’m suggesting is that the consensus should be measured in both, the SIG and the ML.
(Consensus at AMM)
- The meaning of taking consensus in AMM is for members to clarify the pros and cons about APNIC’s implementation. This is not a simple substitution from AMM to ML.
- In addition to the past, how about added a confirmation of consensus in ML ?
Clarification in the AMM is good to have, but not “mandating” the consensus on the AMM. If we accept that the consensus can be reached in the SIG and the ML, then the AMM members that disagree with the proposal, are able to express their concerns in the ML.
(Change of deadline of proposal)
- For the purpose of this proposal, it is better to have a longer online discussion period. Why shorten the deadline by proposal? The proposer should clarify the intention of wanting to move the deadline.
I don’t think it makes sense to have a requirement of a proposal to be send to the ML 4 weeks before the meeting, if we are opting for looking for consensus also in the list. Only a very small percentage of the community is present in the meetings, so the “weight” of the ML over those present in the meeting must be higher. I will be ok to ask for a “longer” period for discussion/comments in the ML if that’s what the community believe, but keeping just one week for submission deadline.
- It is better to be able to measure the effect after change
Not sure to understand this point.
2018-08-10 12:42 GMT+11:00 Bertrand Cherrier <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list email@example.com https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.