Dear Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-126,
based on a meeting we organised on 22nd Aug to discuss these proposals.
Many supporting opinions were expressed about the point of confirming consensus on ML.
A question of doubt and concern was expressed, in that it discontinues AMM consensus and changes the proposal's deadline.
(Consensus on ML)
- I support to take a consensus confirmation with ML instead of AMM.
- I support on the point of view that this proposal will expand the opportunities to the remote participant to discussing about proposal.
- For consensus confirmation in ML, only proposal which reached consensus in OPM are eligible and the proposal which not reached consensus are not eligible. it is not good to lose the opportunity to state a opinion at the ML about the proposal which not reach consensus.
(Consensus at AMM)
- The meaning of taking consensus in AMM is for members to clarify the pros and cons about APNIC’s implementation. This is not a simple substitution from AMM to ML.
- In addition to the past, how about added a confirmation of consensus in ML ?
(Change of deadline of proposal)
- For the purpose of this proposal, it is better to have a longer online discussion period. Why shorten the deadline by proposal? The proposer should clarify the intention of wanting to move the deadline.
(Other)
- It is better to be able to measure the effect after change
Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki