Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
----- Original Message -----From: MH Billy CheonTo: 'Phan Thi Nhung'Cc: ckp@nida.or.krSent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 11:17 AMSubject: VNNIC's Position about IPv6 Fee Abolishing ProposalHi phan thi nhung,
This is billy from KRNIC of NIDA.
As you may know, NIR fee WG is gathering opinions from NIRs
whether we keep the proposal about abolishing IPv6 per address fee, or not.
So far, except VNNIC, most of NIRs agreed to keep the proposal,
and discuss at the APNIC Hanoi meeting.
As such, would it be possible for you to present to M/L about VNNIC's position?
Many Thanks
Billy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chanki Park" <ckp@nic.or.kr>
To: "'Phan Thi Nhung'" <nhung@vnnic.net.vn>
Cc: "???" <cmh@nic.or.kr>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:48 AM
Subject: FW: [sig-nir] [Fwd: [sig-ipv6] Document update - APNIC Fee Schedule]
> Are you receiving mail from the list?
>
> Regards,
>
> Chanki
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sig-nir-bounces@lists.apnic.net
>> [mailto:sig-nir-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani
>> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:40 AM
>> To: David Chen
>> Cc: sig-nir@lists.apnic.net; chku@twnic.net.tw
>> Subject: Re: [sig-nir] [Fwd: [sig-ipv6] Document update -
>> APNIC Fee Schedule]
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Tao Chen, David.
>> So we have 3 NIRs who wish to continue discussions on this proposal.
>>
>> I think this shows a fair amount of needs to keep this
>> proposal active,
>> but before we finally conclude, is there any other NIR who wish to
>> express their opinions?
>>
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>> David Chen wrote:
>> > Dear Colleagues,
>> >
>> > It's David Chen from TWNIC.
>> >
>> > We think the proposal needs more inputs from another
>> members and APNIC.
>> > So we suggest that NIRs keep it in active status to gather
>> more opinions.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> >
>> > Izumi Okutani wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Dear All,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>APNIC has implemented the change in its fee schedule with
>> 90% discount
>> >>on the IPv6 per address fee(see the attached annoucement
>> for details).
>> >>
>> >>This is related to "prop-028-v001" proposed at this SIG,
>> and it would be
>> >>upto the proposer(NIRs) to drop the proposal or keep it active for
>> >>continued discussions.
>> >>
>> >>"prop-028-v001:Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs"
>> >> http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/discussions/prop-028-v001.txt
>> >>
>> >>What do you wish to do about this proposal? >NIRs
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Regards,
>> >>Izumi
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>> >>
>> >>Subject:
>> >>[sig-ipv6] Document update - APNIC Fee Schedule
>> >>From:
>> >>APNIC Secretariat <secretariat@apnic.net>
>> >>Date:
>> >>Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:26:18 +1000
>> >>To:
>> >>apnic-announce@apnic.net
>> >>
>> >>To:
>> >>apnic-announce@apnic.net
>> >>CC:
>> >>sig-ipv6@apnic.net, sig-policy@apnic.net
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>________________________________________________________________
>> >>
>> >>Document update
>> >>________________________________________________________________
>> >>
>> >>APNIC seeks final editorial comments on the following draft
>> document:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>* APNIC Fee Schedule: Membership Tiers, Fees, and Descriptions
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>The document has been updated to reflect the decision made by the
>> >>APNIC EC (Executive Council) on 15 April to implement the following
>> >>fee changes:
>> >>
>> >>- A 90% discount will be applied to the per address fees for
>> >>allocations of IPv6 address space to NIR members with existing
>> >>IPv4 infrastructure. This is in recognition that such networks
>> >>have already received address space from APNIC, for which
>> >>per-address fees have previously been paid.
>> >>
>> >>- Per address fees for allocations of IPv6 address space to
>> >>confederation members will be waived, on the understanding and
>> >>condition that all such members will maintain a single pool of
>> >>IPv6 address space.
>> >>
>> >>The EC believes these policy changes are a progressive step which
>> >>equalise allocation conditions among APNIC members, and hopes this
>> >>will facilitate IPv6 deployment.
>> >>
>> >>The draft document is available at:
>> >>
>> >>http://www.apnic.net/docs/drafts/draft-member-fee-schedule-v004.html
>> >>
>> >>Minutes of the EC meeting documenting this decision are at:
>> >>
>> >>http://www.apnic.net/ec/minutes/20050415.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Nature of the document review
>> >>-----------------------------
>> >>This is an editorial review only. Consensus has already been reached
>> >>on the policy issues which are to implemented.
>> >>
>> >>Therefore, during the comment period, interested parties may:
>> >>
>> >>- object to the draft document on the grounds that it does not
>> >>properly reflect the consensus decision reached in the Policy
>> >>Review Process;
>> >>- suggest improvements of any aspect of the document;
>> >>- request that an additional call for comment be made to allow
>> >>more consideration of substantial revisions.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Deadline for comments
>> >>-------------------
>> >>Your comments are requested by 8 August 2005. Please send your
>> >>comments to the sig-policy mailing list. Details at:
>> >>
>> >>http://www.apnic.net/community/lists
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Regards
>> >>____________________________________________________________
>> __________
>> >>APNIC Secretariat <secretariat@apnic.net>
>> >>Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100
>> >>PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199
>> >>------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------
>> >>See you at APNIC 20
>> >>Hanoi, Vietnam, 6-9 September 2005 www.apnic.net/meetings
>> >>____________________________________________________________
>> __________
>> >>
>> >>* sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues *
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>sig-ipv6 mailing list
>> >>sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net
>> >>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-ipv6
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-nir mailing list
>> sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>>
Thanks to NIRs for expressing your comments. I think we should keep this proposal("prop-028-v001:Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs") active as most NIRs wish to continue discussions on this issue.
Now that APNIC has implemented the 90% discount on the per address fee, I believe the situation has changed since it was initially proposed. Just to start off the discussions, I would like to ask some questions to both NIRs and APNIC.
It seems that 90% is almost as good as free, so would someone from the NIRs share with us why you wish the per address fee to be totally abolished instead of the discount?
I'd also like to ask the reverse question to APNIC. Was there any reason why APNIC has made the decision to provide the discount instead of totally abolishing the fee as proposed by the NIRs? It would also be helpful if APNIC could explain the logic behind the fee change so that we can compare it with what has been proposed by the NIRs.
Any other imputs from non-NIRs/APNIC are also very welcome. Any thoughts on the APNIC fee change or NIR proposal?
Izumi
Phan Thi Nhung wrote:
Dear Billy, I'm sorry for the delay answer. After talking within VNNIC Hostmaster Team, we agree to keep this proposal active and discuss at the NIR SIG at the APNIC 20. See you all in Ha Noi. Regards. Nhung.
Dear all,
Firstly, let's be clear that the discount applies to fees for the allocation of IPv6 address space to existing IPv4 infrastructure. It does not apply to allocations of IPv6 space to new networks, nor to subsequent allocations of IPv6 space to networks that have already transitioned to IPv6. I hope that this is clear in all documentation related to this policy, including the revised fee structure that was recently published.
The rationale for this discount is that the allocation of IPv6 to existing IPv4 infrastructure is intended to be a lightweight process, relying on the fact that the network infrastructure has already been assessed and IPv4 address space allocated. In other words the "work" has been done already in the previous IPv4 application, and it is not justified to charge the same fees for an allocation of (IPv6) addresses to that same infrastructure.
The APNIC EC did initially discuss a 100% fee discount for these cases, but felt on consideration that since some administrative activities are involved in making these allocations, some fee payment is justified.
I hope that this explanation helps, but please let me know if any other issues are not clear.
Best regards, and I look forward to seeing you all in Hanoi,
Paul.
--On Wednesday, 20 July 2005 2:13 PM +0900 Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Thanks to NIRs for expressing your comments. I think we should keep this proposal("prop-028-v001:Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs") active as most NIRs wish to continue discussions on this issue.
Now that APNIC has implemented the 90% discount on the per address fee, I believe the situation has changed since it was initially proposed. Just to start off the discussions, I would like to ask some questions to both NIRs and APNIC.
It seems that 90% is almost as good as free, so would someone from the NIRs share with us why you wish the per address fee to be totally abolished instead of the discount?
I'd also like to ask the reverse question to APNIC. Was there any reason why APNIC has made the decision to provide the discount instead of totally abolishing the fee as proposed by the NIRs? It would also be helpful if APNIC could explain the logic behind the fee change so that we can compare it with what has been proposed by the NIRs.
Any other imputs from non-NIRs/APNIC are also very welcome. Any thoughts on the APNIC fee change or NIR proposal?
Izumi
Phan Thi Nhung wrote:
Dear Billy, I'm sorry for the delay answer. After talking within VNNIC Hostmaster Team, we agree to keep this proposal active and discuss at the NIR SIG at the APNIC 20. See you all in Ha Noi. Regards. Nhung.
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg@apnic.net http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ See you at APNIC 20! Hanoi, Vietnam, 6-9 Sep 2005 http://www.apnic.net/meetings
Thank you for the explanation Paul. Any comments or questions on this?
Izumi
Paul Wilson wrote:
Dear all,
Firstly, let's be clear that the discount applies to fees for the allocation of IPv6 address space to existing IPv4 infrastructure. It does not apply to allocations of IPv6 space to new networks, nor to subsequent allocations of IPv6 space to networks that have already transitioned to IPv6. I hope that this is clear in all documentation related to this policy, including the revised fee structure that was recently published.
The rationale for this discount is that the allocation of IPv6 to existing IPv4 infrastructure is intended to be a lightweight process, relying on the fact that the network infrastructure has already been assessed and IPv4 address space allocated. In other words the "work" has been done already in the previous IPv4 application, and it is not justified to charge the same fees for an allocation of (IPv6) addresses to that same infrastructure.
The APNIC EC did initially discuss a 100% fee discount for these cases, but felt on consideration that since some administrative activities are involved in making these allocations, some fee payment is justified.
I hope that this explanation helps, but please let me know if any other issues are not clear.
Best regards, and I look forward to seeing you all in Hanoi,
Paul.
--On Wednesday, 20 July 2005 2:13 PM +0900 Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Thanks to NIRs for expressing your comments. I think we should keep this proposal("prop-028-v001:Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs") active as most NIRs wish to continue discussions on this issue.
Now that APNIC has implemented the 90% discount on the per address fee, I believe the situation has changed since it was initially proposed. Just to start off the discussions, I would like to ask some questions to both NIRs and APNIC.
It seems that 90% is almost as good as free, so would someone from the NIRs share with us why you wish the per address fee to be totally abolished instead of the discount?
I'd also like to ask the reverse question to APNIC. Was there any reason why APNIC has made the decision to provide the discount instead of totally abolishing the fee as proposed by the NIRs? It would also be helpful if APNIC could explain the logic behind the fee change so that we can compare it with what has been proposed by the NIRs.
Any other imputs from non-NIRs/APNIC are also very welcome. Any thoughts on the APNIC fee change or NIR proposal?
Izumi
Phan Thi Nhung wrote:
Dear Billy, I'm sorry for the delay answer. After talking within VNNIC Hostmaster Team, we agree to keep this proposal active and discuss at the NIR SIG at the APNIC 20. See you all in Ha Noi. Regards. Nhung.
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg@apnic.net http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
See you at APNIC 20! Hanoi, Vietnam, 6-9 Sep 2005 http://www.apnic.net/meetings
Dear Paul,
This is David Chen from TWNIC. May I have a question about the discount rule?
My question is, if one existing IPv6 initial allocation space holder wants to implement the prop-021-v001 policy to expand IPv6 allocation space which is more than /32, can the subsequent allocation address space be applied the 90% discount by using their IPv4 infrastructure? Could you please clarify this for us, thank you very much!
Best Regards,
David
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Thank you for the explanation Paul. Any comments or questions on this?
Izumi
Paul Wilson wrote:
Dear all,
Firstly, let's be clear that the discount applies to fees for the allocation of IPv6 address space to existing IPv4 infrastructure. It does not apply to allocations of IPv6 space to new networks, nor to subsequent allocations of IPv6 space to networks that have already transitioned to IPv6. I hope that this is clear in all documentation related to this policy, including the revised fee structure that was recently published.
The rationale for this discount is that the allocation of IPv6 to existing IPv4 infrastructure is intended to be a lightweight process, relying on the fact that the network infrastructure has already been assessed and IPv4 address space allocated. In other words the "work" has been done already in the previous IPv4 application, and it is not justified to charge the same fees for an allocation of (IPv6) addresses to that same infrastructure.
The APNIC EC did initially discuss a 100% fee discount for these cases, but felt on consideration that since some administrative activities are involved in making these allocations, some fee payment is justified.
I hope that this explanation helps, but please let me know if any other issues are not clear.
Best regards, and I look forward to seeing you all in Hanoi,
Paul.
--On Wednesday, 20 July 2005 2:13 PM +0900 Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Thanks to NIRs for expressing your comments. I think we should keep this proposal("prop-028-v001:Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs") active as most NIRs wish to continue discussions on this issue.
Now that APNIC has implemented the 90% discount on the per address fee, I believe the situation has changed since it was initially proposed. Just to start off the discussions, I would like to ask some questions to both NIRs and APNIC.
It seems that 90% is almost as good as free, so would someone from the NIRs share with us why you wish the per address fee to be totally abolished instead of the discount?
I'd also like to ask the reverse question to APNIC. Was there any reason why APNIC has made the decision to provide the discount instead of totally abolishing the fee as proposed by the NIRs? It would also be helpful if APNIC could explain the logic behind the fee change so that we can compare it with what has been proposed by the NIRs.
Any other imputs from non-NIRs/APNIC are also very welcome. Any thoughts on the APNIC fee change or NIR proposal?
Izumi
Phan Thi Nhung wrote:
Dear Billy, I'm sorry for the delay answer. After talking within VNNIC Hostmaster Team, we agree to keep this proposal active and discuss at the NIR SIG at the APNIC 20. See you all in Ha Noi. Regards. Nhung.
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg@apnic.net http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
See you at APNIC 20! Hanoi, Vietnam, 6-9 Sep 2005 http://www.apnic.net/meetings
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Hi David,
In any case where an allocation is justified by existing IPv4 address holdings, the discount will apply.
However please note that for administrative reasons, there is a minimum charge for any allocation. For an IPv6 allocation to an Extra Large member, this is approximately USD$140. This minimum charge is not discounted.
I hope that helps.
Paul.
--On Wednesday, 20 July 2005 5:00 PM +0800 David Chen david@twnic.net.tw wrote:
Dear Paul,
This is David Chen from TWNIC. May I have a question about the discount rule?
My question is, if one existing IPv6 initial allocation space holder wants to implement the prop-021-v001 policy to expand IPv6 allocation space which is more than /32, can the subsequent allocation address space be applied the 90% discount by using their IPv4 infrastructure? Could you please clarify this for us, thank you very much!
Best Regards,
David
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Thank you for the explanation Paul. Any comments or questions on this?
Izumi
Paul Wilson wrote:
Dear all,
Firstly, let's be clear that the discount applies to fees for the allocation of IPv6 address space to existing IPv4 infrastructure. It does not apply to allocations of IPv6 space to new networks, nor to subsequent allocations of IPv6 space to networks that have already transitioned to IPv6. I hope that this is clear in all documentation related to this policy, including the revised fee structure that was recently published.
The rationale for this discount is that the allocation of IPv6 to existing IPv4 infrastructure is intended to be a lightweight process, relying on the fact that the network infrastructure has already been assessed and IPv4 address space allocated. In other words the "work" has been done already in the previous IPv4 application, and it is not justified to charge the same fees for an allocation of (IPv6) addresses to that same infrastructure.
The APNIC EC did initially discuss a 100% fee discount for these cases, but felt on consideration that since some administrative activities are involved in making these allocations, some fee payment is justified.
I hope that this explanation helps, but please let me know if any other issues are not clear.
Best regards, and I look forward to seeing you all in Hanoi,
Paul.
--On Wednesday, 20 July 2005 2:13 PM +0900 Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Thanks to NIRs for expressing your comments. I think we should keep this proposal("prop-028-v001:Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs") active as most NIRs wish to continue discussions on this issue.
Now that APNIC has implemented the 90% discount on the per address fee, I believe the situation has changed since it was initially proposed. Just to start off the discussions, I would like to ask some questions to both NIRs and APNIC.
It seems that 90% is almost as good as free, so would someone from the NIRs share with us why you wish the per address fee to be totally abolished instead of the discount?
I'd also like to ask the reverse question to APNIC. Was there any reason why APNIC has made the decision to provide the discount instead of totally abolishing the fee as proposed by the NIRs? It would also be helpful if APNIC could explain the logic behind the fee change so that we can compare it with what has been proposed by the NIRs.
Any other imputs from non-NIRs/APNIC are also very welcome. Any thoughts on the APNIC fee change or NIR proposal?
Izumi
Phan Thi Nhung wrote:
Dear Billy, I'm sorry for the delay answer. After talking within VNNIC Hostmaster Team, we agree to keep this proposal active and discuss at the NIR SIG at the APNIC 20. See you all in Ha Noi. Regards. Nhung.
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg@apnic.net http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
See you at APNIC 20! Hanoi, Vietnam, 6-9 Sep 2005 http://www.apnic.net/meetings
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg@apnic.net http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ See you at APNIC 20! Hanoi, Vietnam, 6-9 Sep 2005 http://www.apnic.net/meetings
Dear Paul,
Thanks for the feedback. It's very helpful for us.
Best Regards,
David
Paul Wilson wrote:
Hi David,
In any case where an allocation is justified by existing IPv4 address holdings, the discount will apply.
However please note that for administrative reasons, there is a minimum charge for any allocation. For an IPv6 allocation to an Extra Large member, this is approximately USD$140. This minimum charge is not discounted.
I hope that helps.
Paul.
--On Wednesday, 20 July 2005 5:00 PM +0800 David Chen david@twnic.net.tw wrote:
Dear Paul,
This is David Chen from TWNIC. May I have a question about the discount rule?
My question is, if one existing IPv6 initial allocation space holder wants to implement the prop-021-v001 policy to expand IPv6 allocation space which is more than /32, can the subsequent allocation address space be applied the 90% discount by using their IPv4 infrastructure? Could you please clarify this for us, thank you very much!
Best Regards,
David
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Thank you for the explanation Paul. Any comments or questions on this?
Izumi
Paul Wilson wrote:
Dear all,
Firstly, let's be clear that the discount applies to fees for the allocation of IPv6 address space to existing IPv4 infrastructure. It does not apply to allocations of IPv6 space to new networks, nor to subsequent allocations of IPv6 space to networks that have already transitioned to IPv6. I hope that this is clear in all documentation related to this policy, including the revised fee structure that was recently published.
The rationale for this discount is that the allocation of IPv6 to existing IPv4 infrastructure is intended to be a lightweight process, relying on the fact that the network infrastructure has already been assessed and IPv4 address space allocated. In other words the "work" has been done already in the previous IPv4 application, and it is not justified to charge the same fees for an allocation of (IPv6) addresses to that same infrastructure.
The APNIC EC did initially discuss a 100% fee discount for these cases, but felt on consideration that since some administrative activities are involved in making these allocations, some fee payment is justified.
I hope that this explanation helps, but please let me know if any other issues are not clear.
Best regards, and I look forward to seeing you all in Hanoi,
Paul.
--On Wednesday, 20 July 2005 2:13 PM +0900 Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Thanks to NIRs for expressing your comments. I think we should keep this proposal("prop-028-v001:Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs") active as most NIRs wish to continue discussions on this issue.
Now that APNIC has implemented the 90% discount on the per address fee, I believe the situation has changed since it was initially proposed. Just to start off the discussions, I would like to ask some questions to both NIRs and APNIC.
It seems that 90% is almost as good as free, so would someone from the NIRs share with us why you wish the per address fee to be totally abolished instead of the discount?
I'd also like to ask the reverse question to APNIC. Was there any reason why APNIC has made the decision to provide the discount instead of totally abolishing the fee as proposed by the NIRs? It would also be helpful if APNIC could explain the logic behind the fee change so that we can compare it with what has been proposed by the NIRs.
Any other imputs from non-NIRs/APNIC are also very welcome. Any thoughts on the APNIC fee change or NIR proposal?
Izumi
Phan Thi Nhung wrote:
Dear Billy, I'm sorry for the delay answer. After talking within VNNIC Hostmaster Team, we agree to keep this proposal active and discuss at the NIR SIG at the APNIC 20. See you all in Ha Noi. Regards. Nhung.
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg@apnic.net http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
See you at APNIC 20! Hanoi, Vietnam, 6-9 Sep 2005 http://www.apnic.net/meetings
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg@apnic.net http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
See you at APNIC 20! Hanoi, Vietnam, 6-9 Sep 2005 http://www.apnic.net/meetings _______________________________________________ sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Dear All,
I'm sure most of you are aware of the consensus process for the proposal(prop-028-v001), but I'd like to share it with everyone here just as a reminder.
1) Proposal to be posted on the SIG mailing list (4 weeks before the meeting) --> DONE
2) Discussions on the mailing list (until the onsite meeting) --> Currenly ongoing
3) Presentation slides posted on the APNIC website (2-4 weeks before the meeting)
4) Proposal presented onsite at the NIR SIG session (APNIC20, 7th Sep) Confirm consensus from the participants
5) Confirm consensus at AMM (APNIC20, 9th Sep) Confirm approval from APNIC membership as a whole
6) Confirmation of consensus on the mailing list (8 weeks)
7) Endorsement by APNIC EC
It should be no different from the standard policy process, but would someone from APNIC please add some words if there is anything else we should note?
"APNIC policy development process" http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/process.html
Any questions about the process can be posted on this mailing list, or you can contact us at "sig-nir-chair@apnic.net" if you feel more comfortable to comment indivisually.
Thanks, and see you soon in Hanoi!
Izumi
Dear Izumi,
Thank you for this reminder. You've set it out well and the processes are in order.
This proposal can be read from: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-028-v001.html
As we are in discussion period, we'd look fwd to further comments via this list.
Regards, Save APNIC secretariat
-----Original Message----- From: sig-nir-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-nir- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani Sent: Sunday, 24 July 2005 9:56 PM Cc: sig-nir@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-nir] Re: The consensus process for the proposal"prop- 028-v001"
Dear All,
I'm sure most of you are aware of the consensus process for the proposal(prop-028-v001), but I'd like to share it with everyone here just as a reminder.
Proposal to be posted on the SIG mailing list (4 weeks before the meeting) --> DONE
Discussions on the mailing list (until the onsite meeting) --> Currenly ongoing
Presentation slides posted on the APNIC website (2-4 weeks before the meeting)
Proposal presented onsite at the NIR SIG session (APNIC20, 7th Sep) Confirm consensus from the participants
Confirm consensus at AMM (APNIC20, 9th Sep) Confirm approval from APNIC membership as a whole
Confirmation of consensus on the mailing list (8 weeks)
Endorsement by APNIC EC
It should be no different from the standard policy process, but would someone from APNIC please add some words if there is anything else we should note?
"APNIC policy development process" http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/process.html
Any questions about the process can be posted on this mailing list, or you can contact us at "sig-nir-chair@apnic.net" if you feel more comfortable to comment indivisually.
Thanks, and see you soon in Hanoi!
Izumi
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Activity Summary
- 6701 days inactive
- 6701 days old
- sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
- 5 participants
- 8 comments