Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision ofPRO

To: Chanki Park <ckp at nic dot or dot kr>
Subject: Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision ofPROP-028-v001
From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:29:51 +1000
Cc: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <200512060502.jB652VH02711 at mail.nic dot or dot kr>
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>
References: <200512060502.jB652VH02711@mail.nic.or.kr>

Chanki


So my expectation was "A tie" or "can not decide"  instead of
"no consensus".
(This is the reason I call the chair's decision A MISTAKE)

One important clarification. This is not a vote. Therefore a "tie" or

"cannot decide" does not exist in the policy development process.

Both are states that indicate that there is no general consensus.


I hope this helps,

Anne
--