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

  • To: "'Jeff Williams'" <jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com>, "'Izumi Okutani'" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decisionofPROP-028-v001
  • From: "Kenny Huang" <huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu>
  • Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:41:49 +0800
  • Cc: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <4396B810.33F75AC3 at ix dot netcom dot com>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • Thread-index: AcX7Cc/U1rHrCm4rT2i7llFVrqNP+gACF58g
      As observing many debate in the list so far, I listed few things that people
      concern regarding
      the SIG decision making :
      1 Who make decision : Chair / Co-Chair
      2 When : 8 Weeks after AMM
      3 What is consensus :  An opinion or position reached by a group (I re-use
      Philip's definition)
      4 How to decide (methodology): 
         There is no official policy document addressed that. If one argue
      something wrong in the PDP
         or Chair/Co-Chair decision, then we should convey the requirements into
      the policy document,
         which provide the public a transparant and legitimate guiding principle.
      I personally appreciate 
         that if we can start working on the practice. APNIC21 call for proposal
      was announced, I certainly
        welcome you can enlighten a better way to improve the process.
      Best Regards
      Kenny Huang
      Chair, Policy SIG
      huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu
      -----Original Message-----
      From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
      [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Jeff Williams
      Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 6:23 PM
      To: Izumi Okutani
      Cc: 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
      Izumi and all,
      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
      *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
      sig-policy mailing list
      sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net