[sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6p
>There are some different opinions regarding this decisions.
>It's a procedural matter.
Procedural matter? Can you explain what you mean by this?
>Some people are getting together to discuss and decide
>what should be proper way to proceed.
Ah. So in the APNIC Open Policy process, the NIRs operate in secret,
making decisions behind closed doors, and then presenting those
decisions to the world. How very open...
Why can't the discussion happen on this mailing list?? That's what it's
for!? As far as I remember, several ideas had been presented, so why are
the NIRs afraid to discuss these ideas in public?
>We can get back with wise answer, I hope.
No one can achieve wisdom when existing in isolation.
> 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