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.
<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
--
