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

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

Dear Tim,

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.
> 
>