I already answered your question.
You totally misunderstand the process.
Please read the APNIC policy process document first and then come back.
Takashi Arano
At 16:27 04/03/02, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Takashi and all,
>
> I believe I have raised one very important issue in my previous two
>responses on this thread regarding this report.
>
>They are again:
>1.) This "Policy SIG report" cannot reflect any consensus of the
>members or interested parties effected as there is not a means
>or record of any recorded votes of ALL of the interested parties
>or members of Apnic..
>
>2.) In particular as you know Takashi, Minimum allocation for
>IPv4 allocations was hotly debated and some serious doubt remains
>as to that proposition, namely "Prop-014IPv4 min allocation size (P)".
>
> So in the future, it would be wise and advantageous to be sure that
>future reports of this nature and claims of "Consensus" be substantiated
>as well as inclusive...
>
>Takashi Arano wrote:
>
> > Meetings and consensus in meetings are just one part of policy development
> > process
> > which we have already spent a lot of time to discuss and decide.
> > According to our process, still you have 8 weeks to speak up your
> opinions in ML.
> >
> > If you have any proposal for process improvement, please do so here.
> > If you have any opinions for particular proposals which we discussed
> > in the SIG, please raise your issue here. Thanks.
> >
> > Takashi Arano
> >
> > At 13:59 04/03/02, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >Takashi and all,
> > >
> > > Oh I see. So than only those that actually attended the meeting
> > >got the opportunity to vote, is that right? If so, that again is hardly
> > >as Measured consensus of those effected or interested parties...
> > >
> > >Takashi Arano wrote:
> > >
> > > > It was MEASURED. In the meeting, as the chair, I took a vote for every
> > > proposal.
> > > > 70-80% of participants agreed with each proposal and no one or just
> > > one person
> > > > disagreed, depending on the proposal. Then, everytime I confirmed
> > > > that we reached consensus with those results of votes.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Takashi Arano
> > > >
> > > > At 13:04 04/03/02, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > > > >Takashi and all,
> > > > >
> > > > > How was a consensus determined for Prop-014IPv4 min
> allocation size (P)
> > > > >or for that matter any other "Prop" in this report?
> > > > >
> > > > > Our members cannot seem to find any Measured Consensus
> > > > >on any of the proposals in this report... So is this report another
> > > > >reflection of an ICANN style "Declaired-yet-not-measured-Consensus?
> > > > >
> > > > >Takashi Arano wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation in the Address Policy SIG at KL.
> > > > > > Here is a SIG report I presented in the member meeting(AMM),
> > > > > > where all proposals were approved to move to ML discussion.
> > > > > > Please refer to the original drafts for details of each proposals and
> > > > > > presentations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Takashi Arano
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > Overview
> > > > > > 11 topics in 3 sessions, including 6 proposals
> > > > > > 98 attendance in first session, 88 in second and 73 in last
> > > > > > Long, tough but fruitful discussions reached several rough consensus.
> > > > > > Size and shape of room was quite appropriate for discussion
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > Prop-013Multiple discreet networks (P)
> > > > > > Allows multiple APNIC accounts which have discrete networks to be
> > > > > merged into one
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Action Item added
> > > > > > pol-17-001: Proposer to resubmit a modified version of the proposal
> > > > > > (prop-013-v001) to the mailing list. The rewritten proposal will
> > > > > > define multiple discreet networks and consider the HD ratio for
> > > > > > sub-allocating address blocks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > Prop-014IPv4 min allocation size (P)
> > > > > > Lower minimum allocation to /21 with lower eligibility criteria
> > > > > > - immediate need of /23 and
> > > > > > - a detailed plan for /22 in a year
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Consensus reached to proceed to AMM and ML
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Action Item added
> > > > > > pol-17-005: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the
> > > policy proposal
> > > > > > process,
> > > > > > secretariat to implement the proposal to reduce the minimum initial
> > > > > > allocation size
> > > > > > to /21 and to lower the criteria for an initial allocation to
> demonstrate
> > > > > > an immediate need for a /23 and use of a /22 within one year
> > > (prop-014-v001).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > Prop-015IPv6 allocation to closed network (P)
> > > > > > Allows IPv6 allocations to closed network, if the other
> criteria are met
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Consensus reached to proceed to AMM and ML
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Action Item added
> > > > > > pol-17-003: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the
> > > policy proposal
> > > > > > process,
> > > > > > APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to permit
> allocation of IPv6
> > > > > > address space to closed networks (prop-015-v001).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > Prop-016IPv6 allocation to v4 network (P)
> > > > > > - Allows IPv4 infrastructure to be considered during IPv6
> request process
> > > > > > - Proposer clarified the current policy document and proposed
> specific
> > > > > > changes in it
> > > > > > - Amendment proposal which requires 2 year usage plan was suggested
> > > > > > and supported by audience
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Consensus points to proceed to AMM and ML
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Action Item added
> > > > > > pol-17-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the
> > > policy proposal
> > > > > > process, Secretariat to implement the proposal
> (prop-016-v001), with the
> > > > > > modification that
> > > > > > there is an added a requirement for LIRs to have plan to move
> > > some of their
> > > > > > customers from IPv4 to within two years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > Prop-017Recovery of address space (P)
> > > > > > Attempts to recover unused historical IPv4 addresses
> > > > > > APNIC secretariat will identify and recover unused resources.
> > > > > > If APNIC can’t contact the resource holder, resources will
> be put into
> > > > > > “unused” pool after one year.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Consensus reached to proceed to AMM and ML
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Action Item added
> > > > > > pol-17-006: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the
> > > policy proposal
> > > > > > process,
> > > > > > APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to recover unused
> > > address space
> > > > > > (prop-017-v001).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > Informational
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - IPv6 Guideline
> > > > > > Action Item added
> > > > > > pol-17-004: Secretariat to edit and publish the IPv6 guidelines
> > > document on
> > > > > > the sig-policy maililng list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Subsequent allocation in DSL/cable guideline
> > > > > > Action Item added
> > > > > > pol-17-007: Secretariat to call for volunteers of new WG to
> review the
> > > > > > current DSL/cable guideline
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - LIR IPv6 requirement
> > > > > > - Updates of IPv6 address experiment in JP
> > > > > > - NAT is evil
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > Open Action Items checked
> > > > > > - All action items have been cleared except the following
> > > > > > - Action add-16-008: Proposer to resubmit revised IXP proposal
> > > > > > dealing with remaining proposal elements, such as fee waiver
> (which had
> > > > > > been withdrawn during discussion), characteristics (which became
> > > ambiguous
> > > > > > with withdrawal of fee portions), and combined IPv4 and IPv6
> assignments
> > > > > > (which were not fully discussed).
> > > > > > - Secretariat to check the proposer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> > > > > *
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > sig-policy mailing list
> > > > > > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> > > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> > > > >
> > > > >Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > > > >"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
> > > > > Pierre Abelard
> > > > >
> > > > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> > > > >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> > > > >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> > > > >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> > > > >===============================================================
> > > > >Updated 1/26/04
> > > > >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> > > > >IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> > > > >E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
> > > > > Registered Email addr with the USPS
> > > > >Contact Number: 214-244-4827
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >--
> > >Jeffrey A. Williams
> > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > >"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
> > > Pierre Abelard
> > >
> > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> > >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> > >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> > >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> > >===============================================================
> > >Updated 1/26/04
> > >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> > >IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> > >E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
> > > Registered Email addr with the USPS
> > >Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
>Regards and thank YOU Takashi,
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
>"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
> Pierre Abelard
>
>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
>liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
>===============================================================
>Updated 1/26/04
>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
>IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
> Registered Email addr with the USPS
>Contact Number: 214-244-4827