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 13:46:04 +1000
  • Cc: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <200512060200.jB620xm07616 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>
  • Organization: Cisco Systems
  • References: <200512060200.jB620xm07616@mail.nic.or.kr>
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923)
    • 
      Chanki Park said the following on 6/12/05 12:01:
      > 
      > 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?
      
      <snip>
      
      > (How
      > can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?)
      
      Likewise, please explain to us how 4 supporters out of 1000 members is
      "general consensus"?
      
      > 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. 
      
      The chair takes into account *everything*. APNIC member meetings are not
      exclusive clubs that can over-ride the entire membership. Yes, the NIR
      SIG showed expected self-interest and voted through a reduction in their
      fees, but I don't think anyone outside the NIR community would be in the
      slightest bit surprised by that. But how can you say that the attendees
      of the APNIC member meeting are privileged to make decision on behalf of
      the rest of the APNIC members? That's one of the reasons why the 8 week
      comment period was introduced after the close of the AMM. Are you
      suggesting now that we should get rid of this, and make the views of the
      AMM binding? How elitist, how selfish, how disrespectful to the
      developing parts of the Internet in this part of the world.
      
      > 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.)
      
      I'm sorry, I must have missed that whole e-mail thread. Can you show me
      the e-mail from the chair of the APNIC EC which says "please stop
      discussing prop-028-v001, the NIR SIG chair made the correct decision".
      I saw an e-mail from the EC Chair which answered a request from the NIR
      SIG chair on whether or not she'd done something improper within the
      current policy development process framework.
      
      > Conclusion
      > Our PDP is 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.)
      
      To this I'd add:
      
       3. Define the meaning of "general consensus"
      
      But... Why should the EC make the final call? Why do you think it is too
      much responsibility for the SIG Chair? I'd be intrigued to know the
      reasoning, more than just "I think", that is...
      
      As I said right at the start, what is your motivation in this, apart
      from wanting to dictate to the whole region? So much for the bottom up
      process...
      
      > Like I wrote earlier, comments are welcomed.
      
      Here are my two final comments, and I suggest you read and act on them:
      
      - Stop complaining and whining like a spoilt child, and actually sit
      down and do something constructive now.
      
      *and*
      
      - If you see problems with the Policy Development Process, propose
      improvements, with a well argued reasoning for the pros and cons of
      those improvements. The call for proposals has just gone out, you have
      until 30th January to submit your ideas. Then please come to Perth and
      present them.
      
      Good luck and best wishes,
      
      philip
      --