RE: [sig-nir] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"

["Chanki Park" <ckp@nic.or.kr>]

Dear all,

There are some different opinions regarding this decisions.

It's a procedural matter.

Some people are getting together to discuss and decide 
what should be proper way to proceed.

We can get back with wise answer, I hope.

Regards,

Chanki Park



> Dear All,
> 
> 
> Regarding [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs",
> I would like to conclude that although strong support was 
> expressed from
> a few members of the community, there is no clear general 
> consensus for
> the proposal.
> 
> Thank you all for participating in the discussions.
> 
> Observations:
> -------------
> There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on 
> this proposal.
> 
> 4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members)
> 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members)
> 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)
> 
> Major comments:
> ----------------
>  + It is not fair for the rest of the membership to abolish 
> the fee just
>    for NIRs
>  + NIRs are proposing to abolish the fee because the current fee
>    structure is not fair for the NIRs
>  + Questions were raised over why it needs to be dealt with 
> immediately
>    rather than waiting until the new fee structure takes place
>  + It does not make sense as business practice to abolish the existing
>    fee structure without a replacement plan. The proposal cannnot be
>    supported unless there is a replacement on the fee structure, or
>    substitute the financial loss
> 
> Conclusion:
> -----------
> There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
> 
> Reasons:
> --------
> + Points which have not been addressed at the meeting was 
> raised on the
>   mailing list which implies no enough discussions took place at the
>   meeting
> 
> + Those who have expressed support for the proposal are the proposers,
>   or those who benefit from the proposal.
> 
> + Only unsupportive comments were expressed from those who do not
>   benefit from this proposal. One support was expressed conditionally,
>   but this condition was not met.
> 
> + Proposer has not responded to suggestions expressed by 
> those who were
>   opposed to the proposal.
>  (the proposer does not need to take in the suggestions but should be
>   able to explain why their proposal is better than the 
> suggestions, or
>   suggestions would not solve the issue they face)
> 
> Side Note:
> ----------
> The needs of the proposer can be acknowledged, but the 
> proposal needs to
> be more agreeable to the rest of the APNIC community.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Izumi Okutani and David Chen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sig-nir mailing list
> sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>