Hello Bertrand
Since the question was directed to you, you cannot expected a policy
author to answer on your behalf. I was question your decision to give
consensus to such a controversial proposal that has had zero support
from community.
Sometimes on these forums I get in doubt if the Chairs opinion and
preference for a proposal end up influencing them to give consensus to a
proposal just because they like it and find it good which should not
happen, because Chairs function is to declare if based on the community
discussion there was consensus or not and void his own opinion from the
evaluation. I am not saying by that that what happened in this case, but
certainly gets us doubts, specially in a case where nobody else from
community supported it.
Well, what happens in the list cannot be valued less than what happens
int he OPM. It is not that one weights more than the other, because
opinions from the community are what matters, regardless if they were
written or said at a microphone. What is in the room is sometimes a tiny
fraction of the whole community so how can that be privileged over the
other. Both should always have the same consideration.
I think I know a bit about consensus and I am on it for a while. Have
still a fair amount to learn but I didn't start last week.
During the discussion was mentioned points of the RFC 7282 but they were
ignored. Just to recap I want to mention them again to question your
decision to keep the consensus to a proposal that had basically zero
support from the community. Even in a scenario of the Japanese person
have turned into a neutral opinion it still support doesn't exist to
give consensus to a proposal where apparently only the author was in favor.
At what stage all the many different problems I mentioned for this
proposal not to pass and that it was unnecessary were addressed ? It was
just a question of points of views of the author of the proposal and
mine, nothing else. I have put several technical considerations to show
there was alternatives to avoid having yet another unnecessary policy
and the author defended his proposal with what I understand as "nice to
have thing" and seems to not have understood all the technical points put.
One in special that is very hard to buy is that it is necessary and a
must to supply public IPv4 to people on these temporary event during
IPv4 exhaustion as if the current scenario was completely ignored. By
just giving any reply to a question it not necessarily addressing it.
Point 5.1 of APNIC Policy Development Process says "/If there is little
or no comment for or against the proposal, the Chair needs to assess the
level of interest in the proposal. Perhaps the community does not
believe a problem exists, or, alternatively, the participants are
hesitant to begin discussion/.". Is it hard to find out that was the
case. Where was community interest in this proposal, at a minimal ? 2
comments against, 1 that supposedly turned to neutral, the one against
remaining with a lot of the opposition points not answer and still it
was given consensus.
It also says "/The Chair may ask this for individual elements of the
proposal/." and "/If the majority of the participants indicate that they
have no opinion, the Chair and the author should work to stimulate
discussion about the proposal/.
" . May I ask when was that done, specially in a proposal that community
showed near no interest in discussing ?
Further it also says "/If the participants do not believe that the
problem is real, or significant, the Chair should ask the author to
reconsider the need for the proposal. 2) If there are objections, the
Chair can ask the dissenters to decide if their objections are: Minor
objections: ... Major objections/". Seems the case as well that didn't
happen.
"/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/.". Didn't seem to happen too.
"/The process of working together to create a proposal acceptable to all
participants may take more than one OPM phase/" - Why the rush to give
consensus to a proposal that was far from consensus ?
Bertrand I hope you can kindly give the feedback necessary to all these
points because for me it is concerning a proposal with such a
controversy discussion and how was conducted could reach consensus and I
have concerns of other proposals of other subjects that could also reach
in similar terms. In the doubt there should be no consensus.
It is shocking that APNIC Development Process up to today doesn't have
an appeal process in order to deal with this issue. I invite other
authors to work in a proposal to change it and have one as other policy
forums.
I also urge APNIC EC to not Endorse this proposal.
Regards
Fernando
On 06/05/2024 02:21, Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy wrote:
Hello Fernando,
I didn't ignore you, sorry if that's how you felt, please accept my apologies.
Christopher did gave you the correct answer, so I figured that saying again the
same thing would be useless, my bad !
Gaging consensus is not an easy task, we start with the mailing list, most of
the time it's pretty fast as there is close to no comments (...) sometimes you
get a long thread with many peoples (but this is rare).
From there, most of the time, we have no clue if the prop will pass or not,
everything will be done at the OPM. And this is where the fun starts. We take
into consideration the comments and the questions during the presentation, dnd
then we call for consensus
The confer tool is an element used because some community members will not show
their approval (or rejection) publicly, most of the time it confirms what's in
the room. The call for consensus (described in the PDP) is then used to gage
the room temperature after the OPM discussions, it's not something you can
really describe, it's a feeling, and even when you're in the room (and not on
the stage) it's not easy to get. Each call is unique, and sometimes it gets
very tricky (prop-154 was one of them, ask Aftab about it ^_^), only with
experience and time you can do a good job! It's one of the reason why in the
last decade (or more) all the Chairs were co-Chairs before.
The part that lead to the opposition from the JPOPF was addressed in v2, and
changed to a neutral opinion.
If you were to come to Wellington, I would gladly talk with you about consensus
!
Ven 03 mai 2024, à 03:16, Fernando Frediani a écrit :
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 [email protected]
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy -https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
