As I promised, it my summary of what went wrong.
The only thing that went wrong is that you didn't get the outcome you
wanted. The policy development process was followed precisely.
(How
can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?)
There were only four supporters according to your figures.
If 900+ LIRs supported abolishing fees for themselves, would the
objections of a few NIRs be substantial? I think your view would
possibly change in those circumstances.
The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I mentioned
earlier,
the
chair only observed public comment period and concluded that "There is
no
clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored
previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of AMM. If the
chair
is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into
consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't, and the
result
was totally opposite.
The chair followed the documented policy development process. If you
don't believe so, please post the exact part of the policy development
process that you believe was not followed correctly.
Third, the fiat from EC chair.
If some people raised objections against SIG chair's decision, EC
should
have investigated if the SIG chair's decision was reasonable and if
the
objection was valid. However, the EC chair sent a fiat when the
proposal
was
not even EC's table. He simply cut in and stopped discussion.(I looked
EC
chair's role from APNIC document, and I could not find any document
that
says EC chair can cut in, stop discussion and act as a judge.)
Once again, the SIG chair made the only decision that she could possibly
make based on the current process. The EC chair sent an email explaining
this to you.
Your argument is against the current policy development process (which I
personally believe works well). If you don't like it, propose a change.
Regards,
Tim.
