RE: Renaming - NIR meeting to NIR SIG

["Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>]

Thanks Maemura san.

I do not mind changing the name - this was suggested by Anne Lord for
consistency with the other sessions that are held within the APNIC Open
Policy Meeting, and that is a good goal.  However I have one reservation
about this.

We must recognise that the NIR Structure is still not finalised, and it
is very difficult to add new NIRs under these circumstances (as you know
APNIC is not accepting any new NIR/confederation memberships at the
moment).  

It the NIR Meeting is declared as a "SIG", this may imply that the NIR
structure is now complete and operational, which is not true.  We all
know there is a lot more work to do, and this should always be made
clear, or else we may find there is extra pressure and expectation
regarding NIRs.

Paul.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net 
> [mailto:owner-nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of 
> MAEMURA Akinori
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2001 13:18
> To: nir-discuss@apnic.net
> Subject: Renaming - NIR meeting to NIR SIG
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I was proposed renaming NIR meeting to NIR SIG.
> The point is that NIR Meeting is now fully open to any 
> parties and no significant difference from other SIGs.
> 
> I, as the chair, have no objection and think that is much 
> convenient for meeting operations so I'd like to accept this
> proposal if you agree.
> 
> 
> Please present your opinion regardless positive/supporting
> or negative/objection, to this list.  Thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> -----
> MAEMURA Akinori               JPNIC IP Address Working Group
>