RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingI

  • To: "'Izumi Okutani'" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"
  • From: "Chanki Park" <ckp at nic dot or dot kr>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:21:30 +0900
  • Cc: 'David Chen' <david at twnic dot net dot tw>, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <438525CC.3050008 at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: "APNIC SIG for National Internet Registries \(NIRs\)" <sig-nir.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-nir@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>, <mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>, <mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Thread-index: AcXwnzDaqT+U2GqdTIC4l5K/Tptv1AAH3Swg
    • > Hi all,
      > 
      > > 1. Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
      > > 2. What is the meaning of "consensus"?
      > > 3. What is the importance of "8 week comment period"?
      > >    (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during 
      > comment period.)
      > >
      > > Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision 
      > was published
      > > that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
      > >
      > > Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your 
      > detailed reasoning on
      > > the
      > > decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
      > >
      > > If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members,
      > > I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
      > I already explained my reasoning on the mailing list, but if there is
      > anything unclear about it, I'd be happy to explain further.
      > Save has already provided us with the citation, so I will skip this.
      > 
      > http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/archive/2005/11/msg
      > 00001.html
      > 
      
      I looked at above reasoning again.
      
      It contains a SERIOUS flaw.
      Let me explain why...
      
      Quoting from above announcement
      
      <snip>
      Observations:
      -------------
      There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.
      
      4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members)
      4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members)
      1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)
      
      <snip>
      
      Conclusion:
      -----------
      There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
      
      -end of quotation-
      
      
      The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period
      because the observation is only that narrow period.
      (The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were totally ignored)
      BIG MISTAKE!!!
      
      So the conclusion had to be something like this :
      
      Reasoning
      1. The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
      2. The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
      3. It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during 8 week comment
      period.
         "There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.
         4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members)
         4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members)
         1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)"
      
      conclusion
      There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but consensus has been
      reached.
      
      Comments are welcomed on above observations.
      
      IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to 
      APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through 
      proper steps with consensus. 
      (There were some chances to proposal, but it went through as it is now)
      
      Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
      
      It should be reported to APNIC EC for the final approval, isn't it?
      
      
      > > There were many alternative way to deal with this situation 
      > instead of
      > > declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
      > > ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide
      > >     postpone the announcement and have open discussion with
      > >     the people who objects
      > >     and so forth...
      > As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this
      > proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this 
      > particular
      > proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I
      > felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared
      > "no-consensus".
      > 
      > This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can
      > continue discussions on this topic.
      > 
      > Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
      > 
      > 
      
      Let's correct the mistake first, and then discuss what to do.
      
      I am trying to correct mistakes, and while doing this I also reviewing
      APNIC policy development process.
      We may need to elaborate some of APNIC policy development process
      for the future.(I don't have a good idea yet.)
      
      Regards,
      
      Chanki