Re: [sig-policy] 答复: 答复: prop-050: IPv4 address transfers

["Terence Zhang YH" <zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn>]

Seiichi, 

I know it's rude to do that, but I can't help comment on your opinion. 
Please excuse me. 

I think what Chair (and Co-chairs) are doing now is trying to decide 
whether 'confirming the consensus' or not, which is a required procedure
after the 8 week comment period.  

Actually I share the same concern as you and hope that safeguard is put 
in place before tranfer policy goes into action; and we all understand 
it will take about 6 months to implement prop-050.  But how can we 
be sure prop-071/072 or similiar safeguard can reach consensus 6 months
later? 

Since prop-050 specifically state that ' This proposal to take effect 
AS SOON AS the APNIC Secretariat can implement...' , so it would possibly 
take effect without safeguards. 

So, at this point, I prefer Chair (and Co-chairs) count me as 'objection'.

Terence Zhang


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Seiichi Kawamura" <kawamucho@msa.biglobe.ne.jp>
To: "Zhang Jian" <zhangjian@cnnic.cn>
Cc: "'Randy Bush'" <randy@psg.com>; "'sig-policy'" <sig-policy@apnic.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] 答复: 答复: prop-050: IPv4 address transfers


> Hi Jian
> 
> I'm not a co-chair, so I don't think my
> opinion has any meaning whatsoever, but if
> it means anything, I would like to say a word
> or two about the situation right now.
> I know what I'm doing is not right, but I can't help it.
> 
> I believe that APNIC's policy development process
> states that a consensus is called at meetings and
> just as you say, the 8week period on this mailing list
> is for people who couldn't attend, or for people who have
> second thoughts. This is very important and I think
> somewhere around 20 people expressed their opinions and
> concerns about this proposition.
> 
> If I remember correctly, there was one or two who said
> prop-050 should not be. Most including me state that they are not against
> prop-050 but request that a safeguard be put in place before
> it goes into action.
> 
> That means that only one or two is objecting to prop050 itself.
> There were hundreds of people who paid their air fares
> and hotel fees and hundres of peso's to attend the meeting
> and if a consesus were to be overthrown by just a few members
> on the mailing list, what is the importance of an APNIC policy meeting
> anyways?
> 
> The best thing to do, is to ask the EC to withold implementation
> at least till the next APNIC meeting. That's what we all want.
> We all want a safeguard for 050, and not to have it killed.
> Sam has already pointed out to us that it will take at least
> 6 months, so this should not be a problem. We should discuss whether
> to ask EC to proceed with the implementation or not at the next meeting,
> but to call off consensus is nonsense. Please correct me if I'm wrong,
> but if you stated a no consensus, won't we have to start all over again
> with a new proposal? Is that really what the community wants?
> 
> Appologies, but let me be picky again.
> 
>> 'substantial objections' to prop-050, which cannot be consider a consensus.
> 
> There was consensus at the last APNIC meeting. It has been recorded officially.
> What I believe you are doing, is calling off a consensus.
> 
> Seiichi
> 
> 
>> Randy:
>> Both Ching-heng and I sent email on our internal list specifically 
>> stated that we don't think consensus has been reached. 
>> But you ignored our comments and announced a consensus. 
>>  
>> I prefer more open communication instead of imposing opinion upon others
>> too.
>>  
>> Does people express serious concerns consistently cannot be considered 
>> 'objection'? 
>>  
>> The mailing-list is not a place for voting so people usually may not
>> specifically say 'Objection ', but we can understand
>> clearly from their messages. 
>>  
>> The 8 weeks comment period is for those who didn't have chance
>> to express their opinion in the OPM meeting or was confused at 
>> the OPM meeting to have second chance to make their idea 
>> expressed clearly, also more communication helps people to clarify their
>> point 
>> and helps people understand each other better. 
>>  
>> Those people expressed and defended their concerns consistently 
>> in each of their posts about the proposal, I would consider they 
>> object to the proposal. 
>>  
>> Those people like Andy and Seiichi, they only expressed some concern, 
>> they also expressed some supports in other posts, I wouldn't 
>> consider them as 'object to' the proposal .
>>  
>> Since there are at least 5 people expressed serious concerns, I consider
>> there are 
>> 'substantial objections' to prop-050, which cannot be consider a consensus.
>> 
>> I certainly can see that there's significant community interest in the
>> concept of transfers,  and that with careful discussion, there might a
>> significant chance of community to reach consensus in the future.
>> Let's keep up our good work.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Jian
>> 
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] 
>> 发送时间: 2009年5月20日 23:02
>> 收件人: Zhang Jian
>> 抄送: Ching-Heng; sig-policy
>> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] 答复: prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
>> 
>> hi juan,
>> 
>>> As we discussed before in sig-chairs mailing list, Ching-heng and me as
>>> co-chairs of policy sig, neither of us think consensus has been reached on
>>> prop-050.
>> 
>> well, firstly, the approval message sat on our internal list for over a
>> day and you said nothing.  so possibly a bit more could be done on our
>> communication.  i am an ops hacker and researcher, and am more used to
>> open and direct communication than nir and admin infrastructure
>> politicans may be.
>> 
>> secondly, according to the policy development process, consensus was
>> reached in manila.  this mailing list period was to see if there were
>> "substantial objections."  please review the policy development process.
>> 
>>> I have made a rough count. Totally 18 people made comments on this
>> proposal
>>> in mailing list, total 81 posts have been posted, there are 9 people have
>>> serious concerns about this proposal, therefore I don't think consensus is
>>> reached.
>> 
>> people making comments is a positive thing.  it is called community
>> participation in the process.  we do our best to encourage and support
>> it.  
>> 
>> i for one hope that the discussion on the list will produce proposals
>> and consensus to augment -50, but we failed to have consensus on them in
>> manila.  and failed consensus on ammendments to a proposal does not
>> constitute either failed consensus on the proposal itself, nor does it
>> constitute substantial objection to the proposal.
>> 
>> and once again, this is not a voting process.
>> 
>> you still confuse consensus with voting, concern with objection, etc.
>> these things do not transit cultural boundaries well, and unfortunately,
>> neither you nor ching-heng had the opportunity to be at the sig chairs'
>> meetings where these aspects of process have been repeatedly discussed.
>> 
>> as kawamura-san, andy, ... pointed out, they are concerned but not
>> objecting.  i share their concerns, but my proposal did not gain
>> consensus in manila, and i am not a 'sore loser' who makes a fuss about
>> process.  we move ahead.  perhaps others will succeed where i did not.
>> we should support attempts at forward progress, not indulge in process
>> arguments because we did not succeed.
>> 
>> let us perform our jobs and move forward by helping those who are trying
>> to build some safeguards on top of the substrate of prop-50.
>> 
>> i appreciate your concerns, but the pdp is being followed, the consensus
>> for the proposal was reached in manila.  the list discussion has been
>> one of the healthiest i have seen for a proposal, which does not imply
>> substantial objection.  the consensus is not overturned.
>> 
>> regards,
>> randy
>> 
>> *              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
> *              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
>