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

  • To: Kenny Huang <huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decisionofPROP-028-v001
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com>
  • Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:59:14 -0800
  • Cc: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, 'Izumi Okutani' <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • 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: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <E1EjwkT-000436-00@alum.sinica.edu>
    • 
      Very briefly, the suggestion I have and have had for many years
      is that if a consensus is sought for any proposal, that consensus
      MUST be measurable if such is to be declaired.
      
      This would require that those in which such proposals effect
      have open and unfettered access to forums ect. in which such
      proposals are discussed, such as this one.  Those of course
      that do not decide to participate do not do so for reasons
      that are of their own determination of reasons that may not
      necessarily be known.
      
      
      Kenny Huang wrote:
      
      > Dear Jeff,
      >
      > 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
      > decisionofPROP-028-v001
      >
      > 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
      > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > --
      > 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
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
      
      Regards,
      
      --
      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