Re: [sig-policy] 答复: 答复: prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
Hash: SHA1
Hi Terence
> I know it's rude to do that, but I can't help comment on your opinion.
> Please excuse me.
oh, nono. I'm the rude one here. Thanks for your comment.
> I think what Chair (and Co-chairs) are doing now is trying to decide
> whether 'confirming the consensus' or not, which is a required procedure
> after the 8 week comment period.
I can understand.
> Actually I share the same concern as you and hope that safeguard is put
> in place before tranfer policy goes into action; and we all understand
> it will take about 6 months to implement prop-050. But how can we
> be sure prop-071/072 or similiar safeguard can reach consensus 6 months
> later?
I know. we're not sure.
That's why i think we should ask the Secretariat to
wait till after the next APNIC meeting.
But I'm glad we share the same views here.
Or, if you are very worried, maybe you can
submit a proposal that stops the transfers. Something like, "an emergency
halt for IP address transfers". If prop-071/072 or others of the like
fail to reach consensus, but this "halt proposal" reaches one,
you can stop it, right? Alghouth I thinks that's going too far...
> Since prop-050 specifically state that ' This proposal to take effect
> AS SOON AS the APNIC Secretariat can implement...' , so it would possibly
> take effect without safeguards.
That clause, if I remember correctly, was a discussion about whether
we should wait till IPv4 addresses get depleted more or not.
It would not be wrong to ask the Secretariat to procrastinate
and delay the time that they implement this.
I think we should be spending our time focusing on what safeguards
will make us feel comfortable. And asking for a delay will give us
all(that includes the secretariat, EC, NIRs, etc) time to prepare, think, discuss.
> So, at this point, I prefer Chair (and Co-chairs) count me as 'objection'.
Although we seem to share different views on the issue,
its nice to have this discussion with you.
Regards,
Seiichi
> Terence Zhang
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Seiichi Kawamura" <kawamucho at msa.biglobe dot ne dot jp>
> To: "Zhang Jian" <zhangjian at cnnic dot cn>
> Cc: "'Randy Bush'" <randy at psg dot com>; "'sig-policy'" <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] 答复: 答复: prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
>
>
>> Hi Jian
>>
>> I'm not a co-chair, so I don't think my
>> opinion has any meaning whatsoever, but if
>> it means anything, I would like to say a word
>> or two about the situation right now.
>> I know what I'm doing is not right, but I can't help it.
>>
>> I believe that APNIC's policy development process
>> states that a consensus is called at meetings and
>> just as you say, the 8week period on this mailing list
>> is for people who couldn't attend, or for people who have
>> second thoughts. This is very important and I think
>> somewhere around 20 people expressed their opinions and
>> concerns about this proposition.
>>
>> If I remember correctly, there was one or two who said
>> prop-050 should not be. Most including me state that they are not against
>> prop-050 but request that a safeguard be put in place before
>> it goes into action.
>>
>> That means that only one or two is objecting to prop050 itself.
>> There were hundreds of people who paid their air fares
>> and hotel fees and hundres of peso's to attend the meeting
>> and if a consesus were to be overthrown by just a few members
>> on the mailing list, what is the importance of an APNIC policy meeting
>> anyways?
>>
>> The best thing to do, is to ask the EC to withold implementation
>> at least till the next APNIC meeting. That's what we all want.
>> We all want a safeguard for 050, and not to have it killed.
>> Sam has already pointed out to us that it will take at least
>> 6 months, so this should not be a problem. We should discuss whether
>> to ask EC to proceed with the implementation or not at the next meeting,
>> but to call off consensus is nonsense. Please correct me if I'm wrong,
>> but if you stated a no consensus, won't we have to start all over again
>> with a new proposal? Is that really what the community wants?
>>
>> Appologies, but let me be picky again.
>>
>>> 'substantial objections' to prop-050, which cannot be consider a consensus.
>> There was consensus at the last APNIC meeting. It has been recorded officially.
>> What I believe you are doing, is calling off a consensus.
>>
>> Seiichi
>>
>>
>>> Randy:
>>> Both Ching-heng and I sent email on our internal list specifically
>>> stated that we don't think consensus has been reached.
>>> But you ignored our comments and announced a consensus.
>>>
>>> I prefer more open communication instead of imposing opinion upon others
>>> too.
>>>
>>> Does people express serious concerns consistently cannot be considered
>>> 'objection'?
>>>
>>> The mailing-list is not a place for voting so people usually may not
>>> specifically say 'Objection ', but we can understand
>>> clearly from their messages.
>>>
>>> The 8 weeks comment period is for those who didn't have chance
>>> to express their opinion in the OPM meeting or was confused at
>>> the OPM meeting to have second chance to make their idea
>>> expressed clearly, also more communication helps people to clarify their
>>> point
>>> and helps people understand each other better.
>>>
>>> Those people expressed and defended their concerns consistently
>>> in each of their posts about the proposal, I would consider they
>>> object to the proposal.
>>>
>>> Those people like Andy and Seiichi, they only expressed some concern,
>>> they also expressed some supports in other posts, I wouldn't
>>> consider them as 'object to' the proposal .
>>>
>>> Since there are at least 5 people expressed serious concerns, I consider
>>> there are
>>> 'substantial objections' to prop-050, which cannot be consider a consensus.
>>>
>>> I certainly can see that there's significant community interest in the
>>> concept of transfers, and that with careful discussion, there might a
>>> significant chance of community to reach consensus in the future.
>>> Let's keep up our good work.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Jian
>>>
>>> -----邮件原件-----
>>> 发件人: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg dot com]
>>> 发送时间: 2009年5月20日 23:02
>>> 收件人: Zhang Jian
>>> 抄送: Ching-Heng; sig-policy
>>> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] 答复: prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
>>>
>>> hi juan,
>>>
>>>> As we discussed before in sig-chairs mailing list, Ching-heng and me as
>>>> co-chairs of policy sig, neither of us think consensus has been reached on
>>>> prop-050.
>>> well, firstly, the approval message sat on our internal list for over a
>>> day and you said nothing. so possibly a bit more could be done on our
>>> communication. i am an ops hacker and researcher, and am more used to
>>> open and direct communication than nir and admin infrastructure
>>> politicans may be.
>>>
>>> secondly, according to the policy development process, consensus was
>>> reached in manila. this mailing list period was to see if there were
>>> "substantial objections." please review the policy development process.
>>>
>>>> I have made a rough count. Totally 18 people made comments on this
>>> proposal
>>>> in mailing list, total 81 posts have been posted, there are 9 people have
>>>> serious concerns about this proposal, therefore I don't think consensus is
>>>> reached.
>>> people making comments is a positive thing. it is called community
>>> participation in the process. we do our best to encourage and support
>>> it.
>>>
>>> i for one hope that the discussion on the list will produce proposals
>>> and consensus to augment -50, but we failed to have consensus on them in
>>> manila. and failed consensus on ammendments to a proposal does not
>>> constitute either failed consensus on the proposal itself, nor does it
>>> constitute substantial objection to the proposal.
>>>
>>> and once again, this is not a voting process.
>>>
>>> you still confuse consensus with voting, concern with objection, etc.
>>> these things do not transit cultural boundaries well, and unfortunately,
>>> neither you nor ching-heng had the opportunity to be at the sig chairs'
>>> meetings where these aspects of process have been repeatedly discussed.
>>>
>>> as kawamura-san, andy, ... pointed out, they are concerned but not
>>> objecting. i share their concerns, but my proposal did not gain
>>> consensus in manila, and i am not a 'sore loser' who makes a fuss about
>>> process. we move ahead. perhaps others will succeed where i did not.
>>> we should support attempts at forward progress, not indulge in process
>>> arguments because we did not succeed.
>>>
>>> let us perform our jobs and move forward by helping those who are trying
>>> to build some safeguards on top of the substrate of prop-50.
>>>
>>> i appreciate your concerns, but the pdp is being followed, the consensus
>>> for the proposal was reached in manila. the list discussion has been
>>> one of the healthiest i have seen for a proposal, which does not imply
>>> substantial objection. the consensus is not overturned.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> 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
- --
##########################################
NEC BIGLOBE Ltd.
Platform Systems Division
Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho at mesh dot ad dot jp>
TEL : 03-3798-6085 (FAX: 03-3798-6029)
Mobile: 090-1547-4791
##########################################
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFKFgPFcrhTYfxyMkIRAkFFAKCBJnhuT++daowKKKZkw6Kjwr+1mACfUcDN
PIJDiwxAxBfX21w9En0FveU=
=cib3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----