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