RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision ofPROP-028-v001

["Chanki Park" <ckp@nic.or.kr>]

> 
> 
> 
> Chanki Park said the following on 6/12/05 15:02:
> > <snip>
> > 
> >>Likewise, please explain to us how 4 supporters out of 1000 
> members is
> >>"general consensus"?
> >
> > You are exactly pointing out the same thing I pointed out.
> 
> No I am most definitely not...
> 
> You are trying to claim that 4 people objecting to and 4 people
> supporting a proposal out of approx 1000 means that there is general
> consensus. 

Dear Philip and Tim,

What I am claiming is "Is 4 objections "substantial objections" ?"
If so, then in what way. by the number? by the contents?

Have we investigated objections?
Do we have consensus?
(But sadly announcement was published.)

-Quoted from our PDP-
If the Chair (and Co-chairs) observe that there are no "substantial
objections" to the proposed policy, consensus is confirmed and the
process continues as outlined below in Step 5.
-end of quote-

If we agree on that 4 objections are substantial objection,
I have no further to say. 


Regards,

Chanki


> I hope I don't have to be subjected to any of the meetings
> you chair where you have to call consensus!
> 
> May I suggest you look up what consensus means. I posted the 
> definition
> in a previous e-mail, go look it up (hint: 25th November at 
> 12:51 AEST).
> 
> Maybe you'd like votes?
> 
> Now, please go back and read my e-mail of earlier today, 
> especially the
> suggestions, and write a proposal on how to improve the APNIC Policy
> Development Process. Then we can all discuss that, and move 
> onwards, and
> forwards, to better things.
> 
> Please!!!!
> 
> philip
> --
>