Re: Renaming - NIR meeting to NIR SIG

[MAEMURA Akinori <maem@maem.org>]

Paul,

Thank you for your valuable comment.  It is also reasonable.

I'd like to have more comments, anyone?

Akinori


In message <004801c1820a$933480e0$2401a8c0@staff.apnic.net>
   "RE: Renaming - NIR meeting to NIR SIG"
   ""Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>" wrote:

| 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
| > 
|