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

  • To: "'Philip Smith'" <pfs at cisco dot com>
  • 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 14:02:31 +0900
  • Cc: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <4395097C.6080609 at cisco dot com>
  • 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: AcX6F6KnKan/I46CTSKB3zXOkryniwABKDfQ
    • > 
      > Likewise, please explain to us how 4 supporters out of 1000 members is
      > "general consensus"?
      >
      
      Dear Philip,
      
      You are exactly pointing out the same thing I pointed out.
      
      I can not answer to above question.
      
      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)
      
      This made everything deviate... 
      
      If the chair sent to EC for final decision and EC called "no consensus",
      I would have not said anything...
      
      At last, Philip and Chanki pinpointed the problem area.
      
      Should we discuss more or cover it?
      
      
      Regards,
      
      Chanki
      
      
      
      > > 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
      > --
      >