Re: Re: [sig-policy] Final call
Tao Chen
CNNIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
To: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:37 PM
Subject: (????睫?-???????????????????)Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs"
>> I concur with Randy, and as I am sure you already know, I am against the
>> proposal.
> :-) Thank you all for expressing your opinions.
>
> I note that all of the non-NIR people who have expressed comments on the
> list believe we should postpone the proposal until we come up with an
> alternative fee structure.
>
> If NIRs still feel that the proposal should be implemented *at this
> particular time*, could somebody from an NIR(or NIRs) can explain the
> reason for this?
>
> Otherwise, the discussions will be parallel between NIRs/NIR members and
> the rest of APNIC memebers, so I think we should re-consider this proposal.
>
>
> Izumi
>
>> Stephan Millet
>>
>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 06:07, Randy Bush wrote:
>>
>>>i can not support the proposal unless it is accompanied by
>>>a replacement proposal. it just makes no business sense
>>>without that.
>>>
>>>randy
>>>
>>>* 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
>>
>>
>> * 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
>>
>
>
> * 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