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

  • To: <sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net>, <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
  • Subject: RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision ofPROP-028-v001
  • From: "Chanki Park" <ckp at nic dot or dot kr>
  • Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:01:00 +0900
  • Cc:
  • In-reply-to: <200512010116.jB11GKw15095 at mail.nic dot or dot kr>
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Thread-index: AcX1k7JIgmjBWmTgToOGFj1/loTdCwAgLuBgAPzLSsA=
    • 
      As I promised, it my summary of what went wrong.
      
      I've been participating and monitoring this policy developing process, and I
      would like to point out some of the errors for our future process. This is
      my personal view, and it has nothing to do with my company. 
      Your comments are welcomed.
      
      First, the decision making of chair. 
      Before the decision was announced, there were internal debate among some of
      NIR members regarding the meaning of "substantial objection". Is
      4:4:1(against: : for : conditional) opinions that were submitted during
      public comment period substantial objection? Some member asked for more time
      to have discussion on the validity of objections and discuss more if they
      were substantial objection. However, the chair ignored some members opinion
      and send final decision.(My feeling toward this action is the chair lost its
      neutral position and was pushing toward predetermined course.) 
      Sending final announcement while debates were going on is definitely wrong.
      Specially without defining the meaning of "substantial objection" and
      without discussing if the objections raised were valid and substantial. (How
      can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?)
      
      Second, the decision of chair.
      The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I mentioned earlier, the
      chair only observed public comment period and concluded that "There is no
      clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored
      previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of AMM. If the chair
      is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into
      consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't, and the result
      was totally opposite. 
      
      Third, the fiat from EC chair.
      If some people raised objections against SIG chair's decision, EC should
      have investigated if the SIG chair's decision was reasonable and if the
      objection was valid. However, the EC chair sent a fiat when the proposal was
      not even EC's table. He simply cut in and stopped discussion.(I looked EC
      chair's role from APNIC document, and I could not find any document that
      says EC chair can cut in, stop discussion and act as a judge.)
      
      Conclusion
      Our PDP is not weak enough to alter the final result by a few people. 
      For the future,
      1. We need to define the meaning of "substantial objection"
      2. We need to elaborate our PDP. 
        ie) After public comment period, let EC make the final call, not the SIG
      chair.(It's too much responsibility for SIG chair when split opinions are
      observed. SIG chair's duty should be limited to reporting to EC.)
      
      Like I wrote earlier, comments are welcomed.
      
      Regards,
      
      Chanki Park
       
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: sig-nir-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net 
      > [mailto:sig-nir-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Chanki Park
      > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:16 AM
      > To: 'Jeff Williams'; 'MAEMURA Akinori'
      > Cc: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net; 'Dr. Eric Dierker'; 
      > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      > Subject: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no 
      > consensus decision ofPROP-028-v001
      > 
      > Dear all,
      > 
      > Jeff is right.
      > 
      > This is really bad policy making process.
      > 
      > I will try to summarize what went wrong and post it on the list.
      > 
      > Regards,
      > 
      > Chanki Park 
      > 
      > > 
      > > MAEMURA and all,
      > > 
      > > I see.  Well "Consensus" decided by fiat is still not consensus.
      > > Unless such can be definitively measured, a consensus cannot
      > > exist in reality.
      > > 
      > > Anyone's judgment is subject to question or scrutiny, anyone's!
      > > 
      > > This is bad policy making...
      > > 
      > > MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
      > > 
      > > > Dear all,
      > > >
      > > > During its telephone conference meeting of 25 November 2005,
      > > > and APNIC EC discussed the current situation regarding
      > > > proposal "prop-028-v001", calling for the abolition of per-
      > > > address fees for NIRs.
      > > >
      > > > The EC recognised that under the APNIC policy development
      > > > process there is no requirement for this matter to be
      > > > discussed by the EC, because the  SIG chair has reached a
      > > > judgement of "no consensus" on this matter
      > > >
      > > > The EC however discussed the matter, and it saw no reason to
      > > > question the judgement of the SIG chair regarding consensus
      > > > within the NIR SIG.
      > > >
      > > > It must be concluded therefore that the decision of the SIG
      > > > chair stands, and that further discussion of the proposal
      > > > will continue on the sig-nir mailing list toward the
      > > > consensus in the next APNIC21.
      > > >
      > > > Regards,
      > > >
      > > > MAEMURA Akinori
      > > > Chair, APNIC Executive Council
      > > > *              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
      > > 
      > > Regards,
      > > --
      > > Jeffrey A. Williams
      > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k 
      > members/stakeholders strong!)
      > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
      > >    Abraham Lincoln
      > > 
      > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
      > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
      > > 
      > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
      > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
      > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
      > > United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
      > > ===============================================================
      > > Updated 1/26/04
      > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
      > > IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
      > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
      > > E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
      > >  Registered Email addr with the USPS
      > > Contact Number: 214-244-4827
      > > 
      > > 
      > > *              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-nir mailing list
      > sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
      >