Hello Bertrand
It seems that you completely ignored this discussion recently and didn't
answer questions that were put specifically to you.
On 06th March it was asked what was taken into consideration in order
give consensus on this proposal and you never replied. It was put and
reviewed all the amount of objections that has been opened, technical
concerns and that the justifications given by the author were not enough
to justify the policy. There was also a message contrary to the proposal
by the Japanese group and *none* in favor of it, zero.
Only the author replied to this thread defending his proposal but on the
subsequent messages on 07th March and on 11th March it was said the
question was direct to you but you simply ignored it as if you didn't
have to answer or explain anything.
You simply thanked the author as if he could answer by yourself. All you
mentioned was asking to put things that could improve the proposal, but
didn't specifically answered the main point about explaining what was
taken into consideration to give consensus to a proposal that has
several objections with proper justification and zero support from any
community member.
So either you didn't pay attention there was a question for you to
explain publicly or you didn't care to answer.
Afterwards you just confirmed the proposal had reached consensus without
explaining anything further from the recent discussion.
As the duty to give or not consensus to a policy lies exclusively on the
chairs it is their duty to explain their reasoning whenever needed and
in this case was a case that clearly there was controversy, but at the
end seems that you with the Co-Chairs treated it as something usual that
didn't even has the need to explain to community the reasoning behind
this consensus. It is something concerning in my view and I want to
reiterate the need to explain this consensus because as this one that
can be any other proposals that may pass despite concerns and problems.
Fernando
On 12/04/2024 02:34, Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The four-week final comment period for this proposal has ended.
Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
links to previous versions are available at:
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-156/
During the final comment period there was one objection raised on the
consensus process. It was addressed by the Chair and a community member.
As consensus for this proposal has been maintained, We formally
request that the APNIC Executive Council endorse this proposal.
Once again, thank you for your participation in the APNIC policy
development process.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila and Anupam
Policy SIG Chairs
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
