Edward Chen said the following on 25/11/05 11:35:
I also think we should clarify the definition of "Consensus" .
My understanding of consensus is: "A position or opinion reached by a group".
http://www.answers.com/topic/consensus supports this.
Having 4 for, 4 against, and >100 people offering no opinion doesn't sound like consensus to me. Does the silence of the >100 mean they consent? Or were they too busy reading e-mail or IMing their friends? Maybe APNIC need to consider banning laptops and removing the network from the conference room so that everyone pays attention in future?
As I know,there ara always some persons who oppose each proposal,no matter the proposal is relative to him or not.
Ah, so you are claiming that because the NIR proposal is only relevant to the NIRs, that only the NIRs have a right to vote on it? Wow!
But sometimes the chair seems to be hard to decide whether the proposal reaches the consensus or not.So I hope we can reach consensus about the definition of "Consensus" at first.
The chairs have an impossible task, I don't envy it at all. We should all be supporting them in the very difficult job they have to do.
Another question is if a proposal does not reach consensus,does it mean there is no problem at all or the proposal is not worthy to continue discussion.
My take is that if there is an even balance of opinions for and against, with lots of lively discussion, then I think the proposal is definitely worth revisiting until an optimum solution is reached.
On the other hand, if the proposal is laughed out of the room, or has a majority against, I think it is fairly obvious that the proposal is dead.
In other words,if there is big divarication among APNIC member,should we stop it here only by saying "we can not reach consensus" or should we reflect the situation to EC members and get some positive opinion from them.I do not think sarcasm can resolve the problem.In fact,KRNIC reflects a important problem to APNIC communities,if we want to work out it ,we should think how to deal with the question above.
No one is being sarcastic. There is a very serious issue at stake here, namely that KRNIC want to railroad their opinions through, bypassing the APNIC policy process, simply because it suits them.