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

  • To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision ofPROP-028-v001
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com>
  • Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 02:23:14 -0800
  • Cc: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <> <>
      Well your remarks comments below did not clarify anything regarding
      consensus or if a consensus on this proposal exists or existed.  In fact,
      your remarks and/or comments only further confused or obviscated
      if a consensus existed on this proposal, and what constitutes a consensus
      and how such is determined.
      If you cannot tell or know how many participants are on this forum how
      can a consensus be determined with any degree of accuracy?  Or even if
      you did know such, how do you know for a certantity if a consensus,
      general, rough or otherwise exists?  How is such determined?  Is it just
      your best guess, or what exactly?
      As I recall there was much and many objection to this proposal...
      Izumi Okutani wrote:
      > Dear Chanki,
      > > 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
      > period.
      > 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
      > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-policy mailing list
      > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      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