Yamanishi-san, all,
Thanks for your feedback Yamanishi-san. Describing consensus more clearly - I am happy to work on it. Since there is already an IETF document, we can perhaps use it as the basis rather than defining from scratch? Clarifying who expressesd what opinion > However, since it is specific issue for e-consensus, we can discuss this > point more during the trial. Sure. I think credibility of what is expressed through e-consensus is important when it is not visible to others. If this can be ensured, I am open to hear other ideas. Izumi (2014/05/28 12:21), Masato Yamanishi wrote: > Izumi and All, > > Sorry for late reply. > >> 1) When there is a big difference in discussions and positions >> expressed by e-consensus, Chair/Co-Chair will not only judge based >> on e-consensus (which is what we do today) > > I can confirm it, but please also see my comments for next point. > > >> 2) Describe consensus more explicitly than we do today both during >> Policy SIG and on Policy Development Website > > I think these points are not only for e-consensus but also applicable for > current "show of hands" > since your have a concern about a description of "consensus" itself. > > As of today, what we have as written text is only Section 5.1 in SIG > guideline, > (https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/join-discussions/sigs/sig-guid > elines.pdf). > > It says; > > The show of hands is not a vote. It is a way of broadly gauging > opinion. > > and also; > > If there are objections, the Chair can ask the dissenters to decide if > their objections are: > > i. Minor objections > If the proposal goes forward, the dissenters believe that some > problems may occur for some members in the group. > The participants should work together to see if the proposal can be > modified to overcome these minor objections. > However, it is not always possible to overcome these objections. If > this is the case, the Chair should ask the dissenters > if they are prepared to acknowledge that the overall advantages of > the proposal outweigh their objections > and if the dissenters are willing to stand aside. > > ii. Major objections > If the proposal goes forward, the dissenters believe that major > problems will occur for parts of the community > and that the proposal cannot be adopted in its current format. > > The Chair should devote sufficient time for participants to discuss > ways to overcome major objections. > As in the case of minor objections, participants, including the > proponent, should work together > to develop solutions that overcome the objections. > > > I am doubt current description is enough, but Chairs cannot add or modify > SIG guideline by the sole discretion. > So, can you or somebody suggest better description if we will set a > community consultation in next meeting? > > >> 2) Ensure ways to confirm who expressed what opinion, in case there is >> big difference in what was discussed and expression of position >> through e-consensus >> (if this can be done by registration and chair/co-chair can follow >> up if necessary, that is fine) > > Under current PDP and SIG guideline, I'm not sure Chairs nor the > Secretariat have an authority to investigate > each community member's favor even if it was expressed anonymously. > And also, I'm afraid some community members may not want to give such > authority to Chairs nor the Secretariat. > However, since it is specific issue for e-consensus, we can discuss this > point more during the trial. > > Rgs, > Masato > > > > > > On 14/05/23 4:16, "Izumi Okutani" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> >> Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts. It's helpful to know there >> are a few others who share the same concern. >> >> I think this can actually be addressed by what I suggested. >> >> In general, I think this is a good initiative to support wider >> participation in the process, with also helping the Chair to get the >> sense of room in the course of the discussions. >> >> I also agree this is just one method on how to get a fee of the people >> and doesn't change to overall process nor meaning of the consensus. >> Show of hands/humming.e-cosensus, whatever we use, as long as it's >> clearly explained how they will be taken into account in the context of >> consensus buidling, it doesn't really matter what tool we use. >> >> >> So Andy/Masato, if you could confirm below, it would clear my concerns: >> >> 1) When there is a big difference in discussions and positions >> expressed by e-consensus, Chair/Co-Chair will not only judge based >> on e-consensus (which is what we do today) >> >> 2) Describe consensus more explicitly than we do today both during >> Policy SIG and on Policy Development Website >> >> 2) Ensure ways to confirm who expressed what opinion, in case there is >> big difference in what was discussed and expression of position >> through e-consensus >> (if this can be done by registration and chair/co-chair can follow >> up if necessary, that is fine) >> >> >> I trust they will addressed be from reading between the lines of your >> e-mails but it is still helpful to have a clear message and confirmation. >> >> I am happy to support trying this for the next meeting if it is clear >> and confirmed they will be addressed.Thanks! >> >> >> Izumi >> >> (2014/05/21 17:41), Andy Linton wrote: >>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>> If a "vote" is close, it's highly, highly unlikely that consensus has >>> been >>> reached. And that's no different from where we are now with the show of >>> hands. I believe that we have a problem with the process right now in >>> that >>> we get policy decided by at best a couple of dozen people in the Policy >>> SIG >>> meeting. There are sometimes more than that present but if you take away >>> all the RIR staff then that's really the number making the call. >>> >>> I've had at least one Open Policy Meeting during my term where I thought >>> long and hard about saying "there aren't enough people here to be able >>> to >>> say that this represents the 'Internet community' in the Asia Pacific >>> region". >>> >>> Of course, you can argue that consensus is based on the opinions of >>> "those >>> who care" (http://www.ietf.org/tao.html) but I'd argue that's valid when >>> you have a large number of people who care - as in the IETF. >>> >>> Some meetings ago, Randy proposed that we should dispense with the >>> current >>> policy process - we didn't agree on that but I have no doubt that the >>> process we have now needs to change. There is a real risk that >>> decisions on >>> policy are made by those who can afford to turn up to the Open Policy >>> Meeting. >>> >>> So let's look at using electronic measurement in some form to empower >>> remote participants - my bet is there'll be a very small number. >>> >>> >>> >>> * 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
