Hi Dean,
I hope you and all other attendees are having a great time at the
APNIC meeting; I'm sorry I can't be there.
My natural inclination is to leave reasonable checks and balances
in any governance process unless those checks are unduly delaying
or burdening that process.
I would argue that the existing AMM consensus check neither delays
nor burdens the policy process or members time appreciably, at
least not under the current conditions of small numbers of
relatively simple proposals; I therefore do not see a need to
remove (or make optional) that check at this time.
And should conditions change, such as more controversial proposals
arising in the future, we may have cause to be grateful to have
left the check as it is, to assist in the management of those
situations.
My feeling is therefore that since the AMM consensus imposes
negligible burden now, and may be beneficial in more complicated
scenarios, I believe it is worth keeping for the time being.
With best regards,
David Woodgate
On 15/08/2013 7:28 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Good Evening David.
You make some good points here, but I am undecided if they
are significant enough to stick with the status quo, as opposed to moving forward
with the position as proposed in prop-108.
As you say, you are dealing with worst case scenarios which
may have been more common in the past when more policies were
being considered. Of late we have not seen proposals where
not having an AMM consensus
would have made a significant difference. I believe it is
therefore sensible to revisit the requirement for such a
mechanism.
You highlight two situations for concern:
(a)
For confirmation that the membership of APNIC (as distinct from the unregulated
SIG forum) agrees with the proposed policies;
and
(b)
For time to clarify any uncertainty about what has been
discussed and nominally decided
I believe that the first one
of these is catered for by allowing the chair
the discretion to call for consensus at the AMM if they feel such a call is necessary.
A significant amount of input from non-APNIC members could be one of the
situations under which the chair may feel it necessary to
call for consensus at the AMM.
Prop-108 looks to remove the burden of *having* to call for
consensus however.
The second concern I believe
is covered by allowing the chair and co-chair additional
time to consider consensus during the OPM as put forward in part A of prop-108.
This would allow the chair and co-chair time to discuss a
proposal and consider if there are any issues of concern.
I'd like to gauge how strongly other members of the
community support the position that you put forward. Please,
if you believe that consensus at the AMM
is still required, post to the mailing list outline your
position.
Kind Regards,
Dean