Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision ofPRO
Well your remarks comments below did not clarify anything regarding
consensus or if a consensus on this proposal exists or existed. In fact,
your remarks and/or comments only further confused or obviscated
if a consensus existed on this proposal, and what constitutes a consensus
and how such is determined.
If you cannot tell or know how many participants are on this forum how
can a consensus be determined with any degree of accuracy? Or even if
you did know such, how do you know for a certantity if a consensus,
general, rough or otherwise exists? How is such determined? Is it just
your best guess, or what exactly?
As I recall there was much and many objection to this proposal...
Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Dear Chanki,
>
> > I've been participating and monitoring this policy developing process, and I
> > would like to point out some of the errors for our future process. This is
> > my personal view, and it has nothing to do with my company.
> > Your comments are welcomed.
> >
> > First, the decision making of chair.
> > Before the decision was announced, there were internal debate among some of
> > NIR members regarding the meaning of "substantial objection". Is
> > 4:4:1(against: : for : conditional) opinions that were submitted during
> > public comment period substantial objection? Some member asked for more time
> > to have discussion on the validity of objections and discuss more if they
> > were substantial objection. However, the chair ignored some members opinion
> > and send final decision.(My feeling toward this action is the chair lost its
> > neutral position and was pushing toward predetermined course.)
> > Sending final announcement while debates were going on is definitely wrong.
>
> It was exactly for keeping the neutral position that I went ahead with
> the annoucement. For an open and fair process, it would not be proper
> for the Chair to discuss consensus with the proposer before making the
> announcement in order to maintain impartiality. The Chair must consider
> the situation of the whole community, as well as the proposer.
>
> In making the consensus decision, Chair discusses with the Co-Chair and
> decides whether there was a consensus on the proposal or not.
>
> The Chair and the Co-Chair may chose to consult other parties and take
> in the advice, but the final decision is their choice. I have discussed
> this matter with David, and also informally with some other SIG
> chair/co-chair, and the decision was made as a result of this.
>
> > Specially without defining the meaning of "substantial objection" and
> > without discussing if the objections raised were valid and
> substantial. (How
> > can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?)
>
> I understand that you have a different view about "substantial
> objection" from me, and I have discussed this with you so many times.
>
> Your arguement about 4 objections out of 1,000 members is valid if the
> membership vote was taken. In that case, I agree with your point.
>
> Since we are not taking a vote here, and since it is a consensus based
> decision, it is not simply counting the number of comments for vs the
> number of comments against.
>
> The whole idea of this process is to reach a general agreement through
> discussions, so the content of the discussions is an important factor in
> making the decision. As you can see from the state of the mailing list,
> we are still having very active discussions over this.
>
> Mailing list discussions are not suitable for counting numbers because
> not all 1,000 members subscribe to the mailing list and you really never
> know how many of them are actually active. If you want to count the
> numbers, voting is more effective, which certainly could be an option.
> Perhaps, you can make a proposal at the next meeting if you prefer that
> kind of process.
>
> The reality is, for this particular proposal, we are following the
> consensus based decision making process, not the membership vote. So, I
> have followed the logics based on this process in making my decision.
>
> > Second, the decision of chair.
> > 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.
>
> I do note that there was a consensus at NIR SIG and also at AMM.
>
> However, the consensus at NIR SIG and AMM can be reversed if there are
> substantial objections. That is the whole point on having the comment
> period.
>
> Even though consensus is reached at the meeting, substantial objections
> on the mailing list is an indication that not enough discussions took
> place at the meeting.
>
> I hope this helps to clarify things for you.
>
> Izumi Okutani
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827