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.
So the conclusion had to be something like this :
Reasoning
- The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- 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.
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?
Hi all,
- Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
- What is the meaning of "consensus"?
- What is the importance of "8 week comment period"?
(The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during
comment period.)
Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision
was published
that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your
detailed reasoning on
the
decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members,
I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
I already explained my reasoning on the mailing list, but if there is
anything unclear about it, I'd be happy to explain further.
Save has already provided us with the citation, so I will skip this.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/archive/2005/11/msg
00001.html
I looked at above reasoning again.
It contains a SERIOUS flaw.
Let me explain why...
Quoting from above announcement
<snip>
Observations:
-------------
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)
<snip>
Conclusion:
There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
-end of quotation-
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!!!
So the conclusion had to be something like this :
Reasoning
- The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- 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.
It should be reported to APNIC EC for the final approval, isn't it?
There were many alternative way to deal with this situation
instead of
declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide
postpone the announcement and have open discussion with
the people who objects
and so forth...
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this
proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this
particular
proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I
felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared
"no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can
continue discussions on this topic.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
Let's correct the mistake first, and then discuss what to do.
I am trying to correct mistakes, and while doing this I also reviewing
APNIC policy development process.
We may need to elaborate some of APNIC policy development process
for the future.(I don't have a good idea yet.)
Regards,
Chanki