Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Hi,
Dear all,
There are some different opinions regarding this decisions.
It's a procedural matter.
Procedural matter? Can you explain what you mean by this?
Some people are getting together to discuss and decide what should be proper way to proceed.
Ah. So in the APNIC Open Policy process, the NIRs operate in secret, making decisions behind closed doors, and then presenting those decisions to the world. How very open...
Why can't the discussion happen on this mailing list?? That's what it's for!? As far as I remember, several ideas had been presented, so why are the NIRs afraid to discuss these ideas in public?
We can get back with wise answer, I hope.
No one can achieve wisdom when existing in isolation.
philip --
Regards,
Chanki Park
Dear All,
Regarding [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs", I would like to conclude that although strong support was expressed from a few members of the community, there is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
Thank you all for participating in the discussions.
Observations:
There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)
Major comments:
- It is not fair for the rest of the membership to abolish
the fee just for NIRs
- NIRs are proposing to abolish the fee because the current fee structure is not fair for the NIRs
- Questions were raised over why it needs to be dealt with
immediately rather than waiting until the new fee structure takes place
- It does not make sense as business practice to abolish the existing fee structure without a replacement plan. The proposal cannnot be supported unless there is a replacement on the fee structure, or substitute the financial loss
Conclusion:
There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
Reasons:
- Points which have not been addressed at the meeting was
raised on the mailing list which implies no enough discussions took place at the meeting
Those who have expressed support for the proposal are the proposers, or those who benefit from the proposal.
Only unsupportive comments were expressed from those who do not benefit from this proposal. One support was expressed conditionally, but this condition was not met.
Proposer has not responded to suggestions expressed by
those who were opposed to the proposal. (the proposer does not need to take in the suggestions but should be able to explain why their proposal is better than the suggestions, or suggestions would not solve the issue they face)
Side Note:
The needs of the proposer can be acknowledged, but the proposal needs to be more agreeable to the rest of the APNIC community.
Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani and David Chen
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Hi,
Dear all,
There are some different opinions regarding this decisions.
It's a procedural matter.
Procedural matter? Can you explain what you mean by this?
Sure,
The [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs" proposal went through the following steps.
1) The proposal was drafted by NIR community and discussed on NIR SIG M/L.
2) The proposal was discussed at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting. * We had a few objections, but consensus was reached among NIR members.
3) NIR SIG Chair reported at the APNIC Member Meeting. * There were a few objections, but the consensus was also reached.
4) The proposal is went through 8 weeks comments period. * We had four objections.
At this point, split opinions were observed : Some says four objection is good enough to declare "There is no consensus", and some says "four objections during comment period is not good enough to declare no consensus"
1. Can chair declare a decision under this situation? 2. What is the meaning of "consensus"? 3. What is the importance of "8 week comment period"? (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during comment period.)
Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision was published that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your detailed reasoning on the decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members, I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
If not, I think we have to pause here and build a new process. (I looked at the APNIC policy process, there is no process if final announcement goes into discussion)
There were many alternative way to deal with this situation instead of declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal." ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide postpone the announcement and have open discussion with the people who objects and so forth...
Some people are getting together to discuss and decide what should be proper way to proceed.
Ah. So in the APNIC Open Policy process, the NIRs operate in secret, making decisions behind closed doors, and then presenting those decisions to the world. How very open...
Why can't the discussion happen on this mailing list?? That's what it's for!? As far as I remember, several ideas had been presented, so why are the NIRs afraid to discuss these ideas in public?
I am not sure if NIRs had ever operated in secret. At first, just like any other policy proposal, only a few people who are interested got together drafted the proposal based on their discussion. However, after that things went open, discussed on open NIR SIG M/L as well as face to face APNIC Open Policy Meeting. We followed APNIC policy development process. If you look at the APNIC web site, it's there.
We can get back with wise answer, I hope.
No one can achieve wisdom when existing in isolation.
Now I am seeking members wisdom openly, will it do? :)
Regards,
Chanki Park
philip
Regards,
Chanki Park
Dear All,
Regarding [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs", I would like to conclude that although strong support was expressed from a few members of the community, there is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
Thank you all for participating in the discussions.
Observations:
There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR
APNIC members)
Major comments:
- It is not fair for the rest of the membership to abolish
the fee just for NIRs
- NIRs are proposing to abolish the fee because the current fee structure is not fair for the NIRs
- Questions were raised over why it needs to be dealt with
immediately rather than waiting until the new fee structure takes place
- It does not make sense as business practice to abolish
the existing
fee structure without a replacement plan. The proposal cannnot be supported unless there is a replacement on the fee structure, or substitute the financial loss
Conclusion:
There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
Reasons:
- Points which have not been addressed at the meeting was
raised on the mailing list which implies no enough discussions took place at the meeting
- Those who have expressed support for the proposal are the
proposers,
or those who benefit from the proposal.
- Only unsupportive comments were expressed from those who do not benefit from this proposal. One support was expressed
conditionally,
but this condition was not met.
- Proposer has not responded to suggestions expressed by
those who were opposed to the proposal. (the proposer does not need to take in the suggestions but
should be
able to explain why their proposal is better than the suggestions, or suggestions would not solve the issue they face)
Side Note:
The needs of the proposer can be acknowledged, but the proposal needs to be more agreeable to the rest of the APNIC community.
Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani and David Chen
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Hi,
Chanki Park said the following on 23/11/05 17:43:
Procedural matter? Can you explain what you mean by this?
Sure,
The [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs" proposal went through the following steps.
The proposal was drafted by NIR community and discussed on NIR SIG M/L.
The proposal was discussed at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- We had a few objections, but consensus was reached among NIR members.
NIR SIG Chair reported at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- There were a few objections, but the consensus was also reached.
The proposal is went through 8 weeks comments period.
- We had four objections.
<snip>
Yes, I follow the sig-policy mailing list closely, read all that before...
This still doesn't explain why this is a procedural matter.
I am not sure if NIRs had ever operated in secret. At first, just like any other policy proposal, only a few people who are interested got together drafted the proposal based on their discussion.
Right, that's how everything begins...
However, after that things went open, discussed on open NIR SIG M/L as well as face to face APNIC Open Policy Meeting. We followed APNIC policy development process. If you look at the APNIC web site, it's there.
So, please explain your sentence: "Some people are getting together to discuss and decide what should be proper way to proceed."
What people?
And how can those people make a decision on the proper way to proceed?
Without quoting the APNIC website back to you, I'd imagine the procedure now is that the proposal will be reworked so that it achieves consensus at the next APNIC Member Meeting. This is definitely not a few people getting together and making a decision.
Now I am seeking members wisdom openly, will it do? :)
So your e-mail was really a call for volunteers to help reformulate the proposal? Why didn't you say that at the start?
I volunteer to help, and I'm sure some of the other people who had good input at the last APNIC meeting will also be delighted to help.
philip --
<snip>
Yes, I follow the sig-policy mailing list closely, read all that before...
This still doesn't explain why this is a procedural matter.
What should be done if there were disagreement with chair's decision before making decision and after the announcement. What process should we take? Is there a process for this?
That's why I called this issue as a "procedural matter."
I am not sure if NIRs had ever operated in secret. At
first, just like any
other policy proposal, only a few people who are interested got
together drafted
the proposal based on their discussion.
Right, that's how everything begins...
However, after that things went open, discussed on open NIR SIG M/L as well as face to face APNIC Open Policy Meeting. We
followed APNIC
policy development process. If you look at the APNIC web
site, it's there.
So, please explain your sentence: "Some people are getting together to discuss and decide what should be proper way to proceed."
First of all, the chair and I had different opinion on the result. We had phone conversations... We started ask for advice from someone near us. asked for advice from other SIG chair... asked for advice from some of NIR SIG member... We tried to asked for advice from APNIC staff... And it became public...(This is where we are)
What people?
And how can those people make a decision on the proper way to proceed?
We were seeking for advice before making proper decision. It did not work as you can see...
Without quoting the APNIC website back to you, I'd imagine the procedure now is that the proposal will be reworked so that it achieves consensus at the next APNIC Member Meeting. This is definitely not a few people getting together and making a decision.
Above is not what I said.
I am claiming that the chair and co-chair made WRONG decision.
Let's wait for the chair and co-chair's detailed reasoning and the citations from APNIC documents that lead their decision.
The we can discuss what to do next.
Now I am seeking members wisdom openly, will it do? :)
So your e-mail was really a call for volunteers to help reformulate the proposal? Why didn't you say that at the start?
I volunteer to help, and I'm sure some of the other people who had good input at the last APNIC meeting will also be delighted to help.
I will be glad to work with you and other members.
Regards,
Chanki
Hi,
Chanki Park said the following on 24/11/05 11:34:
What should be done if there were disagreement with chair's decision before making decision and after the announcement. What process should we take? Is there a process for this?
That's why I called this issue as a "procedural matter."
Ah, the issue is now apparent. Despite the fact that there was sufficient disquiet at the APNIC meeting about the proposal passed by the NIR SIG, you want it to proceed. And then you said earlier that the NIRs don't work for their own self interest - sort of looks as though KRNIC/NIDA is, doesn't it? If you were interested in the good of the Internet community in the entire region, you'd respect other people's point of view and opinions, rather than trying to ram your own opinion down everyone else's throats.
APNIC members take note, KRNIC clearly have another agenda here.
I am claiming that the chair and co-chair made WRONG decision.
The chair and co-chair had to make a decision given the feeling in the room. As your only interest in this proposal is to reduce the fees you pay to APNIC, clearly you would disagree with their decision. That's life.
If you had respect for the chair and co-chair, and you had respect for the rest of the Internet community in the region, you'd accept their decision, and spend your time analysing the discussions and work out how to make the proposal more acceptable to the entire community.
Izumi-san has proposed establishing a working group to look at this. I'm not sure it needs to be that formal, as in my view the proposal only needs the minor modification to have no financial impact on APNIC for it to be proposed and accepted at the next Member Meeting. But if a working group is required, hopefully it can start work asap. As I said before, I'm happy to help, if invited to join...
philip --
Chanki Park said the following on 24/11/05 11:34:
What should be done if there were disagreement with chair's decision before making decision and after the announcement. What process should we take? Is there a process for this?
That's why I called this issue as a "procedural matter."
Ah, the issue is now apparent. Despite the fact that there was sufficient disquiet at the APNIC meeting about the proposal passed by the NIR SIG, you want it to proceed. And then you said earlier that the NIRs don't work for their own self interest - sort of looks as though KRNIC/NIDA is, doesn't it? If you were interested in the good of the Internet community in the entire region, you'd respect other people's point of view and opinions, rather than trying to ram your own opinion down everyone else's throats.
APNIC members take note, KRNIC clearly have another agenda here.
My only agenda is correcting a mistake.
And if we need, examine(or elaborate) our policy development process.
Regards,
Chanki
I am claiming that the chair and co-chair made WRONG decision.
The chair and co-chair had to make a decision given the feeling in the room. As your only interest in this proposal is to reduce the fees you pay to APNIC, clearly you would disagree with their decision. That's life.
If you had respect for the chair and co-chair, and you had respect for the rest of the Internet community in the region, you'd accept their decision, and spend your time analysing the discussions and work out how to make the proposal more acceptable to the entire community.
Izumi-san has proposed establishing a working group to look at this. I'm not sure it needs to be that formal, as in my view the proposal only needs the minor modification to have no financial impact on APNIC for it to be proposed and accepted at the next Member Meeting. But if a working group is required, hopefully it can start work asap. As I said before, I'm happy to help, if invited to join...
philip
Chanki Park said the following on 24/11/05 16:31:
My only agenda is correcting a mistake.
And what mistake may that be? That KRNIC/NIDA can't get its own way all the time?
While KRNIC/NIDA may dictate to its membership what does and doesn't happen in Korea, this is not what happens in the rest of the Internet.
Did you consult with your membership in an open forum about all the APNIC policy proposals which were proposed in Hanoi? Not that I can find any evidence of, that's for sure.
I don't recall anyone from KRNIC standing up at the APNIC meeting and saying "we discussed this with our membership, and X% thought it was a great idea, and Y% thought is was bad". I recall one NIR that gave this sort of input, and they are to be congratulated for encouraging open dialogue within the community.
So KRNIC/NIDA clearly makes decisions on what is good and bad for its membership. Same way as you clearly now want to make decisions on what is good and bad for the APNIC membership.
And if we need, examine(or elaborate) our policy development process.
Ah yes, the new policy which says that everything that KRNIC wants is automatically approved regardless of people's opinions? Mmmm, I can see that one being very popular (not!).
philip --
My only agenda is correcting a mistake.
And what mistake may that be? That KRNIC/NIDA can't get its own way all the time?
Philip,
Are you representing Cisco? Are you getting approval from your seniors every time you send mail to the list?
I don't... Please, take this into account when you send future mails.
As "I" said earlier my whole intention is correcting the mistakes, and elaborate the process if we all agree.
About the proposal, let it follow the process. (Open discussions, proper decisions, and so forth) Let the proposal be dealt with proper reasoning.
Regards,
Chanki
While KRNIC/NIDA may dictate to its membership what does and doesn't happen in Korea, this is not what happens in the rest of the Internet.
Did you consult with your membership in an open forum about all the APNIC policy proposals which were proposed in Hanoi? Not that I can find any evidence of, that's for sure.
I don't recall anyone from KRNIC standing up at the APNIC meeting and saying "we discussed this with our membership, and X% thought it was a great idea, and Y% thought is was bad". I recall one NIR that gave this sort of input, and they are to be congratulated for encouraging open dialogue within the community.
So KRNIC/NIDA clearly makes decisions on what is good and bad for its membership. Same way as you clearly now want to make decisions on what is good and bad for the APNIC membership.
And if we need, examine(or elaborate) our policy
development process.
Ah yes, the new policy which says that everything that KRNIC wants is automatically approved regardless of people's opinions? Mmmm, I can see that one being very popular (not!).
philip
Chanki Park said the following on 25/11/05 12:23:
Are you representing Cisco?
I work for Cisco, Cisco is not an APNIC member, I participate in this list as an interested member of the community and as a resident in the AP region.
You work for KRNIC, KRNIC was one of the sponsors of the proposal, and you never stated that these recent opinions are your own and do not represent the position of KRNIC. It is therefore reasonable to assume that your opinions are representative of those of KRNIC.
About the proposal, let it follow the process. (Open discussions, proper decisions, and so forth) Let the proposal be dealt with proper reasoning.
I'm glad we now agree on one thing.
So who is going to take the lead in moving this forward...? Not much time between now and the end of January if this is going to get another airing at APNIC 21...
philip --
I'm glad we now agree on one thing.
So who is going to take the lead in moving this forward...? Not much time between now and the end of January if this is going to get another airing at APNIC 21...
Good...
However, we have to fix the mistake first. Then let's decide what to do next.
Regards,
Chanki
Good...
However, we have to fix the mistake first.
And the mistake being what ??? We don't agree with the KRNIC position ?
Stephan Millet
-----Original Message----- From: Stephan Millet [mailto:stephan@telstra.net] Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 12:54 PM To: Chanki Park; 'Philip Smith' Cc: sig-nir@lists.apnic.net; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"
Good...
However, we have to fix the mistake first.
And the mistake being what ??? We don't agree with the KRNIC position ?
Please don't mix my intention with KRNIC position.
What "I" am raising is.
"The announced chair's final decision contains serious error and it should be fixed."
Let me quote from what "I" sent earlier.
-quote- You have to modify the announcement and declare it again. Because it contains SERIOUS LOGICAL error.
As I mentioned earlier you only observed small part but concluded in full, which means you only looked eyes but described whole face. There is no credence in that description.
Two errors have to be fixed. 1. The logical error(observing small part but concluding in full,) 2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1. -end of quote-
We can discuss the validity of above observation.
Regards,
Chanki
Stephan Millet
Okay, there is no end to this disuccusions.
Let's confirm with the EC whether it was the wrong decision as I mentioned on the mailing list yesterday.
Dear EC members on the list, Would you please review the decision and the process and provide us with your position on whether the consensus decision was unrighteously declared as some members on this mailing list believe?
Regards, Izumi Okutani NIR SIG Chair
Stephan Millet wrote:
Good...
However, we have to fix the mistake first.
And the mistake being what ??? We don't agree with the KRNIC position ?
Stephan Millet
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Okay, there is no end to this discussions.
This is wrong again. Your subjective view is involved here again. Some of the members still want to discuss.
You should not intervene the discussion. (Open, transparent... you know the stuff)
Let's confirm with the EC whether it was the wrong decision as I mentioned on the mailing list yesterday.
Dear EC members on the list, Would you please review the decision and the process and provide us with your position on whether the consensus decision was unrighteously declared as some members on this mailing list believe?
This part is wrong again.
If you look at the policy development process at http://apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/process.html, this discussion can not go to EC at this point.
What do you expect from EC. Are they gods?, judges?
You have to provide more information than above when the discussion is over among members
Regards,
Chanki
Regards, Izumi Okutani NIR SIG Chair
Stephan Millet wrote:
Good...
However, we have to fix the mistake first.
And the mistake being what ??? We don't agree with the
KRNIC position ?
Stephan Millet
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resourcemanagement policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Chanki Park wrote:
Okay, there is no end to this discussions.
This is wrong again. Your subjective view is involved here again. Some of the members still want to discuss.
You should not intervene the discussion. (Open, transparent... you know the stuff)
What makes you say everything I do is "wrong"? You may disagree with my decision or view, but it doesn't make anything "wrong" just because someone has a different point of view from you, and makes the decision you disagree.
In anycase, please go ahead and continue discussions, I didn't intend to stop anyone from making comments.
What I meant was that even if we carry on like this, it does not get us anywhere. You obviously don't agree with the decision I am making although it is clearly defined in the process that it is the chair's decision, so I thought it is better to seek the EC, the third party to make a statement over how they view the process and the decision.
Let's confirm with the EC whether it was the wrong decision as I mentioned on the mailing list yesterday.
Dear EC members on the list, Would you please review the decision and the process and provide us with your position on whether the consensus decision was unrighteously declared as some members on this mailing list believe?
This part is wrong again.
If you look at the policy development process at http://apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/process.html, this discussion can not go to EC at this point.
What do you expect from EC. Are they gods?, judges?
The EC is in the position to review if the decision has been fairly passed following the process. This usually takes place when the decision of consensus is declared by the chair, but since we have a strong agreement over my consensus decision, and you seem to believe that I passed an unfair judgement, so wouldn't it be better if someone other than ourselves review it?
You don't like it when I declare the decision saying that I am making the wrong judgement, and neither would you be content when I request APNIC EC for the review.
You have to provide more information than above when the discussion is over among members
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.
Izumi Regards,
Regards,
Chanki
Regards, Izumi Okutani NIR SIG Chair
Stephan Millet wrote:
Good...
However, we have to fix the mistake first.
And the mistake being what ??? We don't agree with the
KRNIC position ?
Stephan Millet
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resourcemanagement policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Chanki Park said the following on 25/11/05 15:08:
Okay, there is no end to this discussions.
This is wrong again.
?? Gosh, everything is wrong. Everyone wrong, Chanki right, what a surprise!
Your subjective view is involved here again. Some of the members still want to discuss.
Yes, and if you actually *read* what Izumi just said, "there is no end to this discussion" means it is going round and round in circles without resolving anything. I accept it might be an alien concept to have discussions at KRNIC and within the KRNIC membership given your obvious desire to dictate, but in the rest of the Internet, we discuss, and we agree or disagree, etc...
You should not intervene the discussion. (Open, transparent... you know the stuff)
Well, Izumi seems to know exactly what open and transparent is; earlier you have proved to the entire readership of the NIR and Policy SIG mailing lists that you do NOT want open or transparent discussion.
philip --
Chanki Park wrote:
Okay, there is no end to this discussions.
This is wrong again. Your subjective view is involved here again. Some of the members still want to discuss.
You should not intervene the discussion. (Open, transparent... you know the stuff)
I don't think it is a wrong decision. We respect your different view, but it does not mean that we should accept your view. This issue needs more discussion to gather further ideas and let non-nir people understanding the really intension of the proposal. However, according to current policy process and 8 weeks time limitation, I support to make the decision at this stage. I know the decision is controversial, so I think if we leave it to EC to review the case, it would be a better way to relieve some arguments. In the meantime, we could also continue to discuss the NIR fee issue in mailing list to approach the same view with each other.
Regards, David
Let's confirm with the EC whether it was the wrong decision as I mentioned on the mailing list yesterday.
Dear EC members on the list, Would you please review the decision and the process and provide us with your position on whether the consensus decision was unrighteously declared as some members on this mailing list believe?
This part is wrong again.
If you look at the policy development process at http://apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/process.html, this discussion can not go to EC at this point.
What do you expect from EC. Are they gods?, judges?
You have to provide more information than above when the discussion is over among members
Regards,
Chanki
Regards, Izumi Okutani NIR SIG Chair
Stephan Millet wrote:
Good...
However, we have to fix the mistake first.
And the mistake being what ??? We don't agree with the
KRNIC position ?
Stephan Millet
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resourcemanagement policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Chanki,
APNIC members take note, KRNIC clearly have another agenda here.
My only agenda is correcting a mistake.
And if we need, examine(or elaborate) our policy development process.
So if I understand this correctly, you believe that it is a "mistake" to object to a proposal that has evidently been sponsored by KRNIC.
Not all of us can attend every APNIC meetings and I for one certainly appreciate the opportunity to comment on the mailing list following an APNIC meeting.
Yes, I have studied this proposal carefully and I believe there are valid grounds for objecting to it's adoption.
I do not appreciate such objections being blandly brushed aside, as in your previous note, and a unilateral declaration that KRNIC's proposal stands. Such a declaration is not consistent with an open process seeking consensus across all significant view points.
Should we be considering a "one member, one vote" process for all APNIC policy proposals ? Or is there a way to find common ground without resorting to such formalisms at every step ? I fear that if "consensus" means "we must agree with KRNIC" every time, then there is a strong case for using voting to truely determine the membership will. To my mind it would be better if we made an honest attempt to understand what is the most appropriate way forward that has the support of the broad membership base rather than being forced to adopt proposals that advance only the sectorial interests of a very small number of members at the expense of the rest of us.
Regards
Stephan Millet
Hi,
Answers to 1 & 2 below is described in the APNIC Policy Development Process document: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/policy-development.html
- Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
"When the "comment period" has expired, the appropriate SIG Chair (and Co-chairs) will decide whether the discussions on the mailing list represent continued consensus."
- What is the meaning of "consensus"?
"Consensus is defined as "general agreement" as observed by the Chair of the meeting." and on the mailing list:
"Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial objections raised during the "comment period"
It is the chair's responsibility to judge this.
- What is the importance of "8 week comment period"? (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during comment
period.)
The 8-week comment period is an essential part of the process, for 2 reasons: to allow proper consideration of the decision of the meeting; and to allow people who have not attended the meeting to participate. The discussion on the mailing list has no more or less weight than the discussion in the meeting.
Regards,
Save Vocea Policy Development Manager APNIC Secretariat
On 23/11/2005, at 5:43 PM, Chanki Park wrote:
Hi,
Dear all,
There are some different opinions regarding this decisions.
It's a procedural matter.
Procedural matter? Can you explain what you mean by this?
Sure,
The [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs" proposal went through the following steps.
- The proposal was drafted by NIR community and discussed on NIR
SIG M/L.
- The proposal was discussed at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- We had a few objections, but consensus was reached among NIR
members.
NIR SIG Chair reported at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- There were a few objections, but the consensus was also reached.
The proposal is went through 8 weeks comments period.
- We had four objections.
At this point, split opinions were observed : Some says four objection is good enough to declare "There is no consensus", and some says "four objections during comment period is not good enough to declare no consensus"
- Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
- What is the meaning of "consensus"?
- What is the importance of "8 week comment period"? (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during comment
period.)
Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision was published that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your detailed reasoning on the decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members, I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
If not, I think we have to pause here and build a new process. (I looked at the APNIC policy process, there is no process if final announcement goes into discussion)
There were many alternative way to deal with this situation instead of declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal." ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide postpone the announcement and have open discussion with the people who objects and so forth...
Some people are getting together to discuss and decide what should be proper way to proceed.
Ah. So in the APNIC Open Policy process, the NIRs operate in secret, making decisions behind closed doors, and then presenting those decisions to the world. How very open...
Why can't the discussion happen on this mailing list?? That's what it's for!? As far as I remember, several ideas had been presented, so why are the NIRs afraid to discuss these ideas in public?
I am not sure if NIRs had ever operated in secret. At first, just like any other policy proposal, only a few people who are interested got together drafted the proposal based on their discussion. However, after that things went open, discussed on open NIR SIG M/L as well as face to face APNIC Open Policy Meeting. We followed APNIC policy development process. If you look at the APNIC web site, it's there.
We can get back with wise answer, I hope.
No one can achieve wisdom when existing in isolation.
Now I am seeking members wisdom openly, will it do? :)
Regards,
Chanki Park
philip
Regards,
Chanki Park
Dear All,
Regarding [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs", I would like to conclude that although strong support was expressed from a few members of the community, there is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
Thank you all for participating in the discussions.
Observations:
There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR
APNIC members)
Major comments:
- It is not fair for the rest of the membership to abolish
the fee just for NIRs
- NIRs are proposing to abolish the fee because the current fee structure is not fair for the NIRs
- Questions were raised over why it needs to be dealt with
immediately rather than waiting until the new fee structure takes place
- It does not make sense as business practice to abolish
the existing
fee structure without a replacement plan. The proposal cannnot be supported unless there is a replacement on the fee structure, or substitute the financial loss
Conclusion:
There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
Reasons:
- Points which have not been addressed at the meeting was
raised on the mailing list which implies no enough discussions took place at the meeting
- Those who have expressed support for the proposal are the
proposers,
or those who benefit from the proposal.
- Only unsupportive comments were expressed from those who do not benefit from this proposal. One support was expressed
conditionally,
but this condition was not met.
- Proposer has not responded to suggestions expressed by
those who were opposed to the proposal. (the proposer does not need to take in the suggestions but
should be
able to explain why their proposal is better than the suggestions, or suggestions would not solve the issue they face)
Side Note:
The needs of the proposer can be acknowledged, but the proposal needs to be more agreeable to the rest of the APNIC community.
Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani and David Chen
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Hi all,
- Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
- What is the meaning of "consensus"?
- What is the importance of "8 week comment period"? (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during comment period.)
Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision was published that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your detailed reasoning on the decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members, I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
I already explained my reasoning on the mailing list, but if there is anything unclear about it, I'd be happy to explain further. Save has already provided us with the citation, so I will skip this.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/archive/2005/11/msg00001.html
There were many alternative way to deal with this situation instead of declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal." ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide postpone the announcement and have open discussion with the people who objects and so forth...
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
Izumi
Chanki Park wrote:
Hi,
Dear all,
There are some different opinions regarding this decisions.
It's a procedural matter.
Procedural matter? Can you explain what you mean by this?
Sure,
The [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs" proposal went through the following steps.
The proposal was drafted by NIR community and discussed on NIR SIG M/L.
The proposal was discussed at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- We had a few objections, but consensus was reached among NIR members.
NIR SIG Chair reported at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- There were a few objections, but the consensus was also reached.
The proposal is went through 8 weeks comments period.
- We had four objections.
At this point, split opinions were observed : Some says four objection is good enough to declare "There is no consensus", and some says "four objections during comment period is not good enough to declare no consensus"
- Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
- What is the meaning of "consensus"?
- What is the importance of "8 week comment period"? (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during comment period.)
Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision was published that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your detailed reasoning on the decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members, I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
If not, I think we have to pause here and build a new process. (I looked at the APNIC policy process, there is no process if final announcement goes into discussion)
There were many alternative way to deal with this situation instead of declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal." ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide postpone the announcement and have open discussion with the people who objects and so forth...
Some people are getting together to discuss and decide what should be proper way to proceed.
Ah. So in the APNIC Open Policy process, the NIRs operate in secret, making decisions behind closed doors, and then presenting those decisions to the world. How very open...
Why can't the discussion happen on this mailing list?? That's what it's for!? As far as I remember, several ideas had been presented, so why are the NIRs afraid to discuss these ideas in public?
I am not sure if NIRs had ever operated in secret. At first, just like any other policy proposal, only a few people who are interested got together drafted the proposal based on their discussion. However, after that things went open, discussed on open NIR SIG M/L as well as face to face APNIC Open Policy Meeting. We followed APNIC policy development process. If you look at the APNIC web site, it's there.
We can get back with wise answer, I hope.
No one can achieve wisdom when existing in isolation.
Now I am seeking members wisdom openly, will it do? :)
Regards,
Chanki Park
philip
Regards,
Chanki Park
Dear All,
Regarding [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs", I would like to conclude that although strong support was expressed from a few members of the community, there is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
Thank you all for participating in the discussions.
Observations:
There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR
APNIC members)
Major comments:
- It is not fair for the rest of the membership to abolish
the fee just for NIRs
- NIRs are proposing to abolish the fee because the current fee structure is not fair for the NIRs
- Questions were raised over why it needs to be dealt with
immediately rather than waiting until the new fee structure takes place
- It does not make sense as business practice to abolish
the existing
fee structure without a replacement plan. The proposal cannnot be supported unless there is a replacement on the fee structure, or substitute the financial loss
Conclusion:
There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
Reasons:
- Points which have not been addressed at the meeting was
raised on the mailing list which implies no enough discussions took place at the meeting
- Those who have expressed support for the proposal are the
proposers,
or those who benefit from the proposal.
- Only unsupportive comments were expressed from those who do not
benefit from this proposal. One support was expressed
conditionally,
but this condition was not met.
- Proposer has not responded to suggestions expressed by
those who were opposed to the proposal. (the proposer does not need to take in the suggestions but
should be
able to explain why their proposal is better than the suggestions, or suggestions would not solve the issue they face)
Side Note:
The needs of the proposer can be acknowledged, but the proposal needs to be more agreeable to the rest of the APNIC community.
Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani and David Chen
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Hi Izumi-san,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 24/11/05 12:30:
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
I'd be delighted to. I fully understand the original motivation of the proposal, but the proposed solution had a financial impact on APNIC. A solution which has no financial impact on APNIC would set a better precedent, otherwise we could end up with a situation which Randy described earlier.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
That's a good idea, I'd be happy to participate if you'd find that at all useful.
philip --
Great, how do the NIRs feel about this?
Would you like to work closely on the proposal by setting up a working group? If yes, we can call for the volunteers publicly from the whole community.
Izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi-san,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 24/11/05 12:30:
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
I'd be delighted to. I fully understand the original motivation of the proposal, but the proposed solution had a financial impact on APNIC. A solution which has no financial impact on APNIC would set a better precedent, otherwise we could end up with a situation which Randy described earlier.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
That's a good idea, I'd be happy to participate if you'd find that at all useful.
philip
Dear all,
It's David. It's a good idea, I agree to initial a working group to work out results.
David
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Great, how do the NIRs feel about this?
Would you like to work closely on the proposal by setting up a working group? If yes, we can call for the volunteers publicly from the whole community.
Izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi-san,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 24/11/05 12:30:
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
I'd be delighted to. I fully understand the original motivation of the proposal, but the proposed solution had a financial impact on APNIC. A solution which has no financial impact on APNIC would set a better precedent, otherwise we could end up with a situation which Randy described earlier.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
That's a good idea, I'd be happy to participate if you'd find that at all useful.
philip
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Great, how do the NIRs feel about this?
Let's correct a mistake first.
Then let's discuss what to do.
Regards,
Chanki
Would you like to work closely on the proposal by setting up a working group? If yes, we can call for the volunteers publicly from the whole community.
Izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi-san,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 24/11/05 12:30:
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over
this particular
proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the
decision, and I
felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
I'd be delighted to. I fully understand the original
motivation of the
proposal, but the proposed solution had a financial impact
on APNIC. A
solution which has no financial impact on APNIC would set a better precedent, otherwise we could end up with a situation which Randy described earlier.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
That's a good idea, I'd be happy to participate if you'd
find that at
all useful.
philip
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Let's correct a mistake first.
Then let's discuss what to do.
Okay, if you feel more comforatable to wait for the EC's decision first, that's fine.
Regards, Izumi
Chanki Park wrote:
Great, how do the NIRs feel about this?
Let's correct a mistake first.
Then let's discuss what to do.
Regards,
Chanki
Would you like to work closely on the proposal by setting up a working group? If yes, we can call for the volunteers publicly from the whole community.
Izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi-san,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 24/11/05 12:30:
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over
this particular
proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the
decision, and I
felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
I'd be delighted to. I fully understand the original
motivation of the
proposal, but the proposed solution had a financial impact
on APNIC. A
solution which has no financial impact on APNIC would set a better precedent, otherwise we could end up with a situation which Randy described earlier.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
That's a good idea, I'd be happy to participate if you'd
find that at
all useful.
philip
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi all,
- Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
- What is the meaning of "consensus"?
- What is the importance of "8 week comment period"? (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during
comment period.)
Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision
was published
that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your
detailed reasoning on
the decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members, I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
I already explained my reasoning on the mailing list, but if there is anything unclear about it, I'd be happy to explain further. Save has already provided us with the citation, so I will skip this.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/archive/2005/11/msg 00001.html
I looked at above reasoning again.
It contains a SERIOUS flaw. Let me explain why...
Quoting from above announcement
<snip> Observations: ------------- There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)
<snip>
Conclusion: ----------- There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
-end of quotation-
The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period because the observation is only that narrow period. (The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were totally ignored) BIG MISTAKE!!!
So the conclusion had to be something like this :
Reasoning 1. The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting. 2. The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting. 3. It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during 8 week comment period. "There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal. 4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)"
conclusion There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but consensus has been reached.
Comments are welcomed on above observations.
IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through proper steps with consensus. (There were some chances to proposal, but it went through as it is now)
Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
It should be reported to APNIC EC for the final approval, isn't it?
There were many alternative way to deal with this situation
instead of
declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal." ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide postpone the announcement and have open discussion with the people who objects and so forth...
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
Let's correct the mistake first, and then discuss what to do.
I am trying to correct mistakes, and while doing this I also reviewing APNIC policy development process. We may need to elaborate some of APNIC policy development process for the future.(I don't have a good idea yet.)
Regards,
Chanki
Hi Chanki,
The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period because the observation is only that narrow period. (The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were totally ignored) BIG MISTAKE!!!
According to my understanding of the process, the whole idea of having the final comment period on the mailing list is to confirm if it is really okay to go ahead with the meeting consensus. If there are substantial objections on the mailing list, the meeting consensus can be reversed.
So the conclusion had to be something like this :
Reasoning
- The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during 8 week comment
period. "There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this
proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)"
conclusion There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but consensus has been reached.
Comments are welcomed on above observations.
IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through proper steps with consensus. (There were some chances to proposal, but it went through as it is now)
Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
I understand you have a different opinion over whether the objections on the mailing list was "substantial", but this is just a difference in our opinions. I can't declare consensus when I believe more discussions are needed.
I'm sure your opinion on the mailing list will be reviewed by the EC too, so why don't we leave it upto the EC to make the final decision?
Regards, Izumi
Chanki Park wrote:
Hi all,
- Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
- What is the meaning of "consensus"?
- What is the importance of "8 week comment period"?
(The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during
comment period.)
Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision
was published
that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your
detailed reasoning on
the decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members, I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
I already explained my reasoning on the mailing list, but if there is anything unclear about it, I'd be happy to explain further. Save has already provided us with the citation, so I will skip this.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/archive/2005/11/msg 00001.html
I looked at above reasoning again.
It contains a SERIOUS flaw. Let me explain why...
Quoting from above announcement
<snip> Observations: ------------- There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)
<snip>
Conclusion:
There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
-end of quotation-
The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period because the observation is only that narrow period. (The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were totally ignored) BIG MISTAKE!!!
So the conclusion had to be something like this :
Reasoning
- The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during 8 week comment
period. "There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal. 4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)"
conclusion There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but consensus has been reached.
Comments are welcomed on above observations.
IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through proper steps with consensus. (There were some chances to proposal, but it went through as it is now)
Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
It should be reported to APNIC EC for the final approval, isn't it?
There were many alternative way to deal with this situation
instead of
declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal." ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide postpone the announcement and have open discussion with the people who objects and so forth...
As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared "no-consensus".
This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can continue discussions on this topic.
Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
Let's correct the mistake first, and then discuss what to do.
I am trying to correct mistakes, and while doing this I also reviewing APNIC policy development process. We may need to elaborate some of APNIC policy development process for the future.(I don't have a good idea yet.)
Regards,
Chanki
Hi Chanki,
The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period because the observation is only that narrow period. (The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were
totally ignored)
BIG MISTAKE!!!
According to my understanding of the process, the whole idea of having the final comment period on the mailing list is to confirm if it is really okay to go ahead with the meeting consensus. If there are substantial objections on the mailing list, the meeting consensus can be reversed.
Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial enough to reverse the process?
So the conclusion had to be something like this :
Reasoning
- The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
- The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
- It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during
8 week comment
period. "There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this
proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR
APNIC members)"
conclusion There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but
consensus has been
reached.
Comments are welcomed on above observations.
IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through proper steps with consensus. (There were some chances to proposal, but it went through
as it is now)
Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
I understand you have a different opinion over whether the objections on the mailing list was "substantial", but this is just a difference in our opinions. I can't declare consensus when I believe more discussions are needed.
You have to modify the announcement and declare it again. Because it contains SERIOUS LOGICAL error.
As I mentioned earlier you only observed small part but concluded in full, which means you only looked eyes but described whole face. There is no credence in that description.
Two errors have to be fixed. 1. The logical error(observing small part but concluding in full,) 2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1.
I'm sure your opinion on the mailing list will be reviewed by the EC too, so why don't we leave it upto the EC to make the final decision?
The proposal can not go to EC unless you withdraw your announcement and correct the mistake and publish.
Please, correct the mistakes.
Regards,
Chanki
Hi Chanki,
[...]
Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial enough to reverse the process?
1,000 members didn't participate in the discussions. Also, I don't think consensus can be judged just in terms of the numbers. As I menioned in my earlier mail, I have looked at the status of the discussions on the mailing list, and from the state of it, I judged that we need more discussions over this proposal. I totally understand that NIRs have problems with the IPv6 current fee scheme, and I'm not trying to ignore this.
All I am saying is let's have more discussions also with the people have expressed concerns over the proposal and come up with a way which is more agreeable to more people.
[...]
You have to modify the announcement and declare it again. Because it contains SERIOUS LOGICAL error.
As I mentioned earlier you only observed small part but concluded in full, which means you only looked eyes but described whole face. There is no credence in that description.
Two errors have to be fixed.
- The logical error(observing small part but concluding in full,)
- Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1.
I'm sure your opinion on the mailing list will be reviewed by the EC too, so why don't we leave it upto the EC to make the final decision?
The proposal can not go to EC unless you withdraw your announcement and correct the mistake and publish.
Please, correct the mistakes.
I've requested for the EC reviwed in my earlier mail, so let's wait to hear their position.
Izumi
Activity Summary
- 6521 days inactive
- 6521 days old
- sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
- 6 participants
- 28 comments