Izumi, Sorry, I forgot to answer one of your questions.
>Would the next Policy SIG totally be based on button pressing including >those at the venue? Yes, we plan to ask by e-consensus system for both of physical participants and remote participants. However, we also use traditional way (showing hands for physical participants and chat for remote participants) as I mentioned in previous e-mail. Also, it is not just "pressing button". It will have more flexible questions and choices as we are doing in traditional way. Rgs, Masato Yamanishi Policy SIG co-chair On 14/05/19 19:52, "Masato Yamanishi" <[email protected]> wrote: >Izumi, > >Thank you for raising your concern. > >I'm afraid many of your concerns come from misunderstanding, >let me clarify current Chairs' understanding for the e-consensus system. > >1. As same as traditional "showing hands", it is one of factors when >deciding the consensus > As we did in past, Chairs will also consider, > - Discussion on the mailing list > - Discussion in the meeting > Also, Chairs may ask the reason if there are some oppositions, and >consider those reasons > when deciding the consensus. > >2. The questions and choices are configurable on demand > It is NOT binary (nor ternary) choice. Normally, we present 5 >choices, which are > Strongly support/Support/Neutral/Oppose/Strongly Oppose, but actually >the question and options > are configurable on demand. So, chairs may set additional questions, >like > "if this point is modified, what do you think?", or "which do you >prefer original one or modified one?", > or add more options, like "I can't live with (or without) this". > And these changes can be made during the session as we did in past >"showing hands". > >3. It is NOT voting > As mentioned above, it is just one of factors in deciding the >consensus while voting is final result. > Also, the Secretariat and Chairs are trying to find good way to show >the results > since showing the numbers is not good idea apparently. > >4. Registration is required > While current chat system doesn't require any registration, this >e-consensus will require registration. > However, we need to consider the level of verification during >registration, > since strict verification may have negative impact for our openness. > > >5. Next few meetings will be a trial > Chairs will ask the consensus by both ways (showing hands and >e-consensus system), > and compare results to measure its advantage and disadvantage, in >particular following aspects. > - Does the number of participants increase or decrease? > - Does the e-consensus system show same results as traditional >"showing hands" or different? > - Does the anonymousness of e-consensus system have negative impact >for further discussion? > - Is it possible to cheat easily? > >Also, please consider that current chat system may not be enough as a tool >asking consensus to remote participants. >When we had remote hubs, we normally saw 20-30 remote participants and >many of them participated in the consensus. >However, now we are seeing just 1 or 2 support or opposition through the >chat in last few meetings. > >It is very appreciated if you could share any idea or thoughts to improve >it. > >Rgs, >Masato Yamanishi >Policy SIG co-chair > > > > >On 14/05/15 8:35, "Izumi Okutani" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Hi all, >> >> >>I have a few comments about the idea discussed in Policy SIG at APNIC37 >>about replacing show of hands with pressing buttons online. >> >>Consensus Measurement >>https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/community-consultation-on-consensus- >>m >>easurement_1393475895.pdf >> >>These are the points I discussed with my colleagues in JPNIC and >>would be interested to hear from the Secretariat, Chair/Co-Chair and >>others on this list. >> >> >>* Support the motivation of encouraging more participation from remote >>participants. >> >>* On the other hand, we have some concerns as below: >> >> - Less transparency in the process >> - Consensus is not voting but pressing buttons but may encourage >> misunderstanding >> - Anonymous voting may allow multiple voting per person >> >>* Suggestions: >> - Ensure Chair/Co-Chair will not only make decisions based on button >> pressed results but consider the contents of discussions in making >> consensus decisions. (As it is today) >> >> - Clearly explain the above, and pressing the button is not voting: >> on APNIC's PDP webpage and at Policy SIG by Chair/Co-Chair >> >> - Identity of who pressed what button must be trackable. >> At least, Chair/Co-Chair and the secretariat should be able to >> identify and track who pressued and expressed what opinion. >> This is to reduce the risk of multiple voting by a single person, >> and allow Chair/Co-Chair to clarify the intention with indivisual(s) >> if necessary. >> >>* Question: >>I heard the secretariat is preparing to try this from the next meeting. >>If this is true, how would this work in APNIC38: >>Would the next Policy SIG totally be based on button pressing including >>those at the venue? >> >> >>Thanks, >>Izumi/JPNIC >>* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >>_______________________________________________ >>sig-policy mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
