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

[Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>]

This is Izumi again.

The reason why I chose number 3 is because I did not simply look at the
numbers, but the contents of the discussions. We are having very active
discussions on the mailing list. This would not happen if there is a
general consensus over the proposal.

Please read my previous mail for more details.

Chanki Park wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>