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

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

Dear Maemura,

I didn't know what fiat was.
I got this word from Jeff's mail, and I used it again.

At this point, ALL I am trying to do is to clarify some things
for the future so that we don't make similar mistake again.

I hope we handle controversal issues in more professional way.

Subsiding...

Regards,

Chanki


> Chanki,
> 
> Please give me the message-id of the mail which you mentioned,
> then point out the part which you regard as a fiat.
> 
> I don't think the EC Chair did that but I will check.
> 
> For information, I think that Philip pointed out the message 
> I sent on November 30, with Message-Id of 
> 200511301759.CFI82396.NNBF@maem.org
> 
> 
> Regards,
> MAEMURA Akinori
> 
> 
> 
> | > 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.
> | 
>