Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
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
Izumi and all,
Let me humbly offer a solution I think everyone can live with. Why not take a informal vote to see if there is a "Consensus"? In this way you at least have a measurement by which to make a more informed declaration.
Izumi Okutani wrote:
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
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
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
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
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...
However, we have to fix the mistake first.
indeed. and the major one to which people, including i, seem to object is that there is no replacement financial plan. as the lack thereof would seem to be a mistake a business school beginner would not make, this should be embarrassing. how do you propose to fix it?
randy
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
Activity Summary
- 6581 days inactive
- 6581 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 7 participants
- 15 comments