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: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:30:17 +0900
  • 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: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <>
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
      > 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.
      It was exactly for keeping the neutral position that I went ahead with
      the annoucement. For an open and fair process, it would not be proper
      for the Chair to discuss consensus with the proposer before making the
      announcement in order to maintain impartiality. The Chair must consider
      the situation of the whole community, as well as the proposer.
      In making the consensus decision, Chair discusses with the Co-Chair and
      decides whether there was a consensus on the proposal or not.
      The Chair and the Co-Chair may chose to consult other parties and take
      in the advice, but the final decision is their choice. I have discussed
      this matter with David, and also informally with some other SIG
      chair/co-chair, and the decision was made as a result of this.
      > 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?)
      I understand that you have a different view about "substantial
      objection" from me, and I have discussed this with you so many times.
      Your arguement about 4 objections out of 1,000 members is valid if the
      membership vote was taken. In that case, I agree with your point.
      Since we are not taking a vote here, and since it is a consensus based
      decision, it is not simply counting the number of comments for vs the
      number of comments against.
      The whole idea of this process is to reach a general agreement through
      discussions, so the content of the discussions is an important factor in
      making the decision. As you can see from the state of the mailing list,
      we are still having very active discussions over this.
      Mailing list discussions are not suitable for counting numbers because
      not all 1,000 members subscribe to the mailing list and you really never
      know how many of them are actually active. If you want to count the
      numbers, voting is more effective, which certainly could be an option.
      Perhaps, you can make a proposal at the next meeting if you prefer that
      kind of process.
      The reality is, for this particular proposal, we are following the
      consensus based decision making process, not the membership vote. So, I
      have followed the logics based on this process in making my decision.
      > 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. 
      I do note that there was a consensus at NIR SIG and also at AMM.
      However, the consensus at NIR SIG and AMM can be reversed if there are
      substantial objections. That is the whole point on having the comment
      Even though consensus is reached at the meeting, substantial objections
      on the mailing list is an indication that not enough discussions took
      place at the meeting.
      I hope this helps to clarify things for you.
      Izumi Okutani