RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision ofPROP-028-v001

["Chanki Park" <ckp@nic.or.kr>]

<snip>
> 
> Likewise, please explain to us how 4 supporters out of 1000 members is
> "general consensus"?
>

Dear Philip,

You are exactly pointing out the same thing I pointed out.

I can not answer to above question.

So my expectation was "A tie" or "can not decide"  instead of
"no consensus".
(This is the reason I call the chair's decision A MISTAKE)

This made everything deviate... 

If the chair sent to EC for final decision and EC called "no consensus",
I would have not said anything...

At last, Philip and Chanki pinpointed the problem area.

Should we discuss more or cover it?


Regards,

Chanki



> > 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. 
> 
> The chair takes into account *everything*. APNIC member 
> meetings are not
> exclusive clubs that can over-ride the entire membership. Yes, the NIR
> SIG showed expected self-interest and voted through a 
> reduction in their
> fees, but I don't think anyone outside the NIR community 
> would be in the
> slightest bit surprised by that. But how can you say that the 
> attendees
> of the APNIC member meeting are privileged to make decision 
> on behalf of
> the rest of the APNIC members? That's one of the reasons why 
> the 8 week
> comment period was introduced after the close of the AMM. Are you
> suggesting now that we should get rid of this, and make the 
> views of the
> AMM binding? How elitist, how selfish, how disrespectful to the
> developing parts of the Internet in this part of the world.
> 
> > 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.)
> 
> I'm sorry, I must have missed that whole e-mail thread. Can 
> you show me
> the e-mail from the chair of the APNIC EC which says "please stop
> discussing prop-028-v001, the NIR SIG chair made the correct 
> decision".
> I saw an e-mail from the EC Chair which answered a request 
> from the NIR
> SIG chair on whether or not she'd done something improper within the
> current policy development process framework.
> 
> > Conclusion
> > Our PDP is weak enough to alter the final result by a few people. 
> > For the future,
> > 1. We need to define the meaning of "substantial objection"
> > 2. We need to elaborate our PDP. 
> >   ie) After public comment period, let EC make the final 
> call, not the SIG
> > chair.(It's too much responsibility for SIG chair when 
> split opinions are
> > observed. SIG chair's duty should be limited to reporting to EC.)
> 
> To this I'd add:
> 
>  3. Define the meaning of "general consensus"
> 
> But... Why should the EC make the final call? Why do you 
> think it is too
> much responsibility for the SIG Chair? I'd be intrigued to know the
> reasoning, more than just "I think", that is...
> 
> As I said right at the start, what is your motivation in this, apart
> from wanting to dictate to the whole region? So much for the bottom up
> process...
> 
> > Like I wrote earlier, comments are welcomed.
> 
> Here are my two final comments, and I suggest you read and 
> act on them:
> 
> - Stop complaining and whining like a spoilt child, and actually sit
> down and do something constructive now.
> 
> *and*
> 
> - If you see problems with the Policy Development Process, propose
> improvements, with a well argued reasoning for the pros and cons of
> those improvements. The call for proposals has just gone out, you have
> until 30th January to submit your ideas. Then please come to Perth and
> present them.
> 
> Good luck and best wishes,
> 
> philip
> --
>