All, I support Izumi in this concern.
I agree that electronic measurement is a good idea... BUT, yes, people will think it is a vote. If the Chairs go against this 'vote', people will get grumpy and there will be all sorts of issues... especially when a vote is close. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service [email protected] ; www.v4now.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Izumi Okutani <[email protected]> wrote: > > My concern is e-consensus system may be more easily confused as an > electric voting. > > > > 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 >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
