Re: (瑞星提示-此邮件可能是垃圾邮件)Re: [sig-policy] Final call
Tao Chen
CNNIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Lord" <anne at apnic dot net>
To: "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem at maem dot org>
Cc: <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>; <sig-policy at apnic dot net>; "Edward Chen" <chentao at cnnic dot net dot cn>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 10:17 AM
Subject: (瑞星提示-此邮件可能是垃圾邮件)Re: [sig-policy] Final call
> Hi all,
>
> I would just like to clarify what may be a slight misunderstanding here.
>
> The role of the EC in the policy making process is to endorse the
> proposals put before them. The proposals put before the EC will only be
> those where consensus has been determined both at the meeting and on the
> mailing list. The EC has to determine if due process has been followed.
> On all the consensus proposals put to the EC, they are also obligated to
> ensure none will adversely affect APNIC as an organisation.
>
> It is the role of the *SIG chair*, to determine after the 8 week comment
> period on the mailing list, if consensus has been reached or not. The
> end of the comment period for this proposal is on 16th November.
> (http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-028-v001.html)
>
> Save outlined the process in an early email to this list:
>
> "It is now subject to the following three steps:
>
> 3. Discussion after the OPM - this current 8 week comment period
> 4. Confirming consensus - where the appropriate SIG Chair will need to
> determine whether the proposal has reached consensus, or whether
> substantial objections mean that consensus has not been confirmed, and:
> 5. Endorsement from the Executive Council
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Anne
> --
>
>
> Edward Chen wrote:
>> Thank you for your reply,Mr.Akinori
>>
>> CNNIC does not charge pre address fee for IPv6,because we
>> think low fee schedule benefits members who want to deploy IPv6
>> network.
>>
>> In fact,we have no many IPv6 addresses now,so this proposal
>> has no serious effect on us,but we think this proposal
>> can promote IPv6 network deployment in the future,so we
>> support it.The proposal text expresses our view point.
>>
>> Tao Chen
>> CNNIC
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem at maem dot org>
>> To: <chentao at cnnic dot net dot cn>; <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>; <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: [sig-policy] Final call
>>
>>
>>
>>>Tao,
>>>
>>>Yes, the Executive Council has to make the decision on this
>>>proposal anyhow this discussion will go. Right now I see
>>>that while NIR people think it reasonable for the whole
>>>membership, several people don't think so. I suppose the
>>>people on this discussion might not have the same picture
>>>of the background of this proposal.
>>>
>>>I think we have some more room to fill the gap before
>>>leaving it to the process. I'd like NIR people to add
>>>some more words to those who are against.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you for your understanding.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Akinori @ maybe with EC hat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>In message <329011322.28213 at cnnic dot cn>
>>> "Re: Re: [sig-policy] Final call"
>>> ""Edward Chen" <chentao at cnnic dot net dot cn>" wrote:
>>>
>>>| Because we have reached consensus at AMM,now that there is some
>>>| diverge in mailing list,I suggest that we should leave the proposal
>>>| to EC members to decide whether pass the proposal or not?I believe
>>>| they will be care of all member's interests no matter a member belongs
>>>| to APNIC or NIR.
>>>|
>>>| 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: (?ォメ??ズ?-???????????????・瘢雹l???)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
>>>|
>>>| * 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
>
> --
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Anne Lord, Communications Director <anne at apnic dot net>
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100
> PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------