Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingI
Let me humbly offer a solution I think everyone can live with. Why not
take a informal vote to see if there is a "Consensus"? In this way
you at least have a measurement by which to make a more informed
declaration.
Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Chanki Park wrote:
> >>Okay, there is no end to this discussions.
> >>
> >
> >
> > This is wrong again.
> > Your subjective view is involved here again.
> > Some of the members still want to discuss.
> >
> > You should not intervene the discussion.
> > (Open, transparent... you know the stuff)
> What makes you say everything I do is "wrong"? You may disagree with my
> decision or view, but it doesn't make anything "wrong" just because
> someone has a different point of view from you, and makes the decision
> you disagree.
>
> In anycase, please go ahead and continue discussions, I didn't intend to
> stop anyone from making comments.
>
> What I meant was that even if we carry on like this, it does not get us
> anywhere. You obviously don't agree with the decision I am making
> although it is clearly defined in the process that it is the chair's
> decision, so I thought it is better to seek the EC, the third party to
> make a statement over how they view the process and the decision.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>Let's confirm with the EC whether it was the wrong decision as I
> >>mentioned on the mailing list yesterday.
> >>
> >>Dear EC members on the list,
> >>Would you please review the decision and the process and
> >>provide us with
> >>your position on whether the consensus decision was unrighteously
> >>declared as some members on this mailing list believe?
> >>
> >
> >
> > This part is wrong again.
> >
> > If you look at the policy development process at
> > http://apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/process.html,
> > this discussion can not go to EC at this point.
> >
> >
> > What do you expect from EC.
> > Are they gods?, judges?
> The EC is in the position to review if the decision has been fairly
> passed following the process.
> This usually takes place when the decision of consensus is declared by
> the chair, but since we have a strong agreement over my consensus
> decision, and you seem to believe that I passed an unfair judgement, so
> wouldn't it be better if someone other than ourselves review it?
>
> You don't like it when I declare the decision saying that I am making
> the wrong judgement, and neither would you be content when I request
> APNIC EC for the review.
>
> > You have to provide more information than above when
> > the discussion is over among members
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.
>
> Izumi
> Regards,
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chanki
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Regards,
> >>Izumi Okutani
> >>NIR SIG Chair
> >>
> >>Stephan Millet wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Good...
> >>>>
> >>>>However, we have to fix the mistake first.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And the mistake being what ??? We don't agree with the
> >>
> >>KRNIC position ?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Stephan Millet
> >>>
> >>>* 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
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sig-nir mailing list
> > sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
> >
>
> * 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