Yamanishi-san,
Thank you for taking your time to explain, I got the impression we discussed most of the points in Warsaw last week so I am slightly confused what you think I misunderstand. Never the less, it is still helpful to see this summary and for sharing with others, so thank you. 1)-3): I agree. My concern is e-consensus system may be more easily confused as an electric voting. I hope 1)-3) will be clearly explained to participants before consensus process of a proposal. May I assume this would be the case? I found the link shared by Randy helpful. 4): Thank you for clarifying this. This was something I wanted to understand. Between my last e-mail and now, I have an additional understanding that this can also potentially help, for example, to shape discussions onsite by Chair/Co-Chair before consensus questions to get a feel of the room and better shape direction of discussions. This would be an interesting use and I would support trying this initiatvive more proactively . Izumi (2014/05/20 11:52), Masato Yamanishi 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 > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
