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

["Kenny Huang" <huangk@alum.sinica.edu>]

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@alum.sinica.edu
 

-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Williams
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 6:23 PM
To: Izumi Okutani
Cc: sig-nir@lists.apnic.net; sig-policy@lists.apnic.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@lists.apnic.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@ix.netcom.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@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy