[sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6p
> Yes, I follow the sig-policy mailing list closely, read all
> that before...
> This still doesn't explain why this is a procedural matter.
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."
> > 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."
First of all, the chair and I had different opinion on the result.
We had phone conversations...
We started ask for advice from someone near us.
asked for advice from other SIG chair...
asked for advice from some of NIR SIG member...
We tried to asked for advice from APNIC staff...
And it became public...(This is where we are)
> What people?
> And how can those people make a decision on the proper way to proceed?
We were seeking for advice before making proper decision.
It did not work as you can see...
> 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
> at the next APNIC Member Meeting. This is definitely not a few people
> getting together and making a decision.
Above is not what I said.
I am claiming that the chair and co-chair made WRONG decision.
Let's wait for the chair and co-chair's detailed reasoning
and the citations from APNIC documents that lead their decision.
The we can discuss what to do next.
> > 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.
I will be glad to work with you and other members.