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: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:59:25 +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>
Organization: Cisco Systems
References: <200512060502.jB652VH02711@mail.nic.or.kr>
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923)


Chanki Park said the following on 6/12/05 15:02:
> <snip>
> 
>>Likewise, please explain to us how 4 supporters out of 1000 members is
>>"general consensus"?
>
> You are exactly pointing out the same thing I pointed out.

No I am most definitely not...

You are trying to claim that 4 people objecting to and 4 people
supporting a proposal out of approx 1000 means that there is general
consensus. I hope I don't have to be subjected to any of the meetings
you chair where you have to call consensus!

May I suggest you look up what consensus means. I posted the definition
in a previous e-mail, go look it up (hint: 25th November at 12:51 AEST).

Maybe you'd like votes?

Now, please go back and read my e-mail of earlier today, especially the
suggestions, and write a proposal on how to improve the APNIC Policy
Development Process. Then we can all discuss that, and move onwards, and
forwards, to better things.

Please!!!!

philip
--