Hi Fernando, Sorry we're in a bit of a civil war here, I'll get back to you asap.
Regards, Sam 18 mai 2024, à 02:51, Fernando Frediani a écrit : > 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 to [email protected] >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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] Regards, -- Bertrand Cherrier
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
