Re: RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re:

[Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>]

Edward Chen wrote:
> I think the we miss one support vote,in fact the statistic number is
> 
> 
> 
> 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members)
> 1 persons supported the proposal.( non-NIR)
> 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR) 
> 4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members)
> 
> Please be careful to make survey
If you mean about the support expressed from Ram, I have counted as "1
person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR) ". In anycase, I
have not judged consensus simply in terms of numbers, but also looked
into the discussions on the mailing list when I made the decision.

Izumi


> Tao Chen
> CNNIC
>  
> 
>>2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Chanki Park" <ckp@nic.or.kr>
> To: "'Izumi Okutani'" <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
> Cc: "'David Chen'" <david@twnic.net.tw>; <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>; <sig-nir@lists.apnic.net>
> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 9:50 AM
> Subject: ()RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"
> 
> 
> 
>>>Hi Chanki,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period
>>>>because the observation is only that narrow period.
>>>>(The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were 
>>>
>>>totally ignored)
>>>
>>>>BIG MISTAKE!!!
>>>
>>>According to my understanding of the process, the whole idea of having
>>>the final comment period on the mailing list is to confirm if it is
>>>really okay to go ahead with the meeting consensus. If there are
>>>substantial objections on the mailing list, the meeting 
>>>consensus can be
>>>reversed.
>>
>>Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial 
>>enough to reverse the process?
>>
>>
>>>>So the conclusion had to be something like this :
>>>>
>>>>Reasoning
>>>>1. The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
>>>>2. The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
>>>>3. It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during 
>>>
>>>8 week comment
>>>
>>>>period.
>>>>   "There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this
>>>
>>>proposal.
>>>
>>>>   4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members)
>>>>   4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members)
>>>>   1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR 
>>>
>>>APNIC members)"
>>>
>>>>conclusion
>>>>There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but 
>>>
>>>consensus has been
>>>
>>>>reached.
>>>>
>>>>Comments are welcomed on above observations.
>>>>
>>>>IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to
>>>>APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through
>>>>proper steps with consensus.
>>>>(There were some chances to proposal, but it went through 
>>>
>>>as it is now)
>>>
>>>>Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
>>>
>>>I understand you have a different opinion over whether the 
>>>objections on
>>>the mailing list was "substantial", but this is just a 
>>>difference in our
>>>opinions. I can't declare consensus when I believe more 
>>>discussions are
>>>needed.
>>>
>>
>>You have to modify the announcement and declare it again.
>>Because it contains SERIOUS LOGICAL error.
>>
>>As I mentioned earlier you only observed small part but concluded in full,
>>which means you only looked eyes but described whole face. There is 
>>no credence in that description.
>>
>>Two errors have to be fixed.
>>1. The logical error(observing small part but concluding in full,)
>>2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1.
>>
>>
>>>I'm sure your opinion on the mailing list will be reviewed by the EC
>>>too, so why don't we leave it upto the EC to make the final decision?
>>
>>The proposal can not go to EC unless you withdraw your announcement
>>and correct the mistake and publish.
>>
>>Please, correct the mistakes.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Chanki
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>sig-nir mailing list
>>sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
> 
> 
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>