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
management policy *
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-nir mailing list
sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
