Fujisaki-San. Thank you for this updated submission.
I would like to address one point you make in your email. You seem to be suggesting that this proposal is not yet complete and the authors are in fact seeking community feedback at this time. "At this time, in the next sig meeting, we would like to discuss more about the methods and find a conclusion." While this is understandable, I believe that there are some aspects of this situation which need to be addressed. a) if there is an acknowledgement by the authors that the proposal is as yet incomplete, then it should be withdrawn and an 'informational' session held at the policy sig in its place. b) there may be a feeling by the authors that a proposal is the only mechanism available to them. They may feel that the community provides inadequate feedback unless there is a proposal being discussed. I have some sympathy for this point of view, but I believe that it sets a dangerous precedent where proposals are brought to the community where a more informal method of engagement would be more appropriate. c) InternetNZ has a number of policy principles which guide its response to issues. One of them is: "Internet governance should be determined by open, multi-stakeholder processes." Even with the advances in Policy SIG remote participation, care must be taken before points discussed at the policy sig meeting could be claimed to be supported by a multi-stakeholder process. If for example we find ourselves at a Policy SIG meeting making substantive changes to a policy before calling for consensus, it could be argued that this excludes a significant proportion of the Internet community who may be effected by these changes. Ensuring that policy wording is essentially complete, and presented to the mailing list by the time the meeting starts ensures that the largest possible community has had an opportunity for engagement and therefore can be considered a true multi-stakeholder process. Therefore I suggest the following ways forward 1) If the authors feel that the proposal will not be complete by the time of the Policy SIG meeting, that the proposal be reframed as an Informational Session for community discussion during the meeting or 2) That the authors lead an open discussion of the methods on the mailing list with a view to presenting a single finished version before the Policy SIG meeting. This will ensure that substantive changes are not required during the meeting. If such a version is not ready, then as per 1) it should be changed to an Informational Session. Kind Regards Dean Pemberton On Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 藤崎智宏 <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > We've posted new version of prop-115, and it will appear on the web soon. > > Main modification points are: > - remove IPv4 text > - propose several methods to register and distribute IPv6 assignment > information (thank you for your suggestion in the previous sig meeting) > > Authors discussed about methods, but could not reach a decision which to > be used. At this time, in the next sig meeting, we would like to discuss > more > about the methods and find a conclusion. > > We appreciate if you give us any comments or suggestions. > > Yours Sincerely, > -- > Ruri Hiromi > Tomohiro Fujisaki > * 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
