RE: [sig-nir] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeef
There are some different opinions regarding this decisions.
It's a procedural matter.
Some people are getting together to discuss and decide
what should be proper way to proceed.
We can get back with wise answer, I hope.
> 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.
> 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
> 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
> There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
> + Points which have not been addressed at the meeting was
> raised on the
> mailing list which implies no enough discussions took place at the
> + 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 at lists dot apnic dot net