RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decisionofPROP
I know the SIG chair followed our PDP.
All I am point out is that there were many options that the chair could
take.
ie)
1. NIR SIG consensus + AMM consensus + public comment(4:4:1)
is a consensus
2. during public comment period 4:4:1 is a tie (I can not decide. Please EC
decide)
3. no consensus
4. We need more time to decide since we have split opinion among
members
5. etc.
Why number 3 when the figure is 4:4:1?
(I could not see any rational, logical/reasonable reasoning)
This is good place to discuss.
The rest, I know we all followed our PDP.
Regards,
Chanki
>
> There were only four supporters according to your figures.
>
> If 900+ LIRs supported abolishing fees for themselves, would the
> objections of a few NIRs be substantial? I think your view would
> possibly change in those circumstances.
>
> > The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I mentioned
> earlier,
> > the
> > chair only observed public comment period and concluded
> that "There is
> no
> > clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored
> > previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of
> AMM. If the
> > chair
> > is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into
> > consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't, and the
> result
> > was totally opposite.
>
> The chair followed the documented policy development process. If you
> don't believe so, please post the exact part of the policy development
> process that you believe was not followed correctly.
>
> > Third, the fiat from EC chair.
> > If some people raised objections against SIG chair's decision, EC
> should
> > have investigated if the SIG chair's decision was reasonable and if
> the
> > objection was valid. However, the EC chair sent a fiat when the
> proposal
> > was
> > not even EC's table. He simply cut in and stopped
> discussion.(I looked
> EC
> > chair's role from APNIC document, and I could not find any document
> that
> > says EC chair can cut in, stop discussion and act as a judge.)
>
> Once again, the SIG chair made the only decision that she
> could possibly
> make based on the current process. The EC chair sent an email
> explaining
> this to you.
>
> Your argument is against the current policy development
> process (which I
> personally believe works well). If you don't like it, propose
> a change.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim.
>
>