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

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

> 
> > "The announced chair's final decision contains serious error and
> > it should be fixed."
> 
> This is an interesting discussion, however, there is no 
> "serious error"
> as you put it.
> 
> For a sense of perspective, I would urge everyone to re-read the APNIC
> policy development process at:
> http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/policy-development.html#Step-4
> 
> In particular, step 4 answers the very question being thrown around in
> this thread. Ie. When is consensus confirmed? 
> 
> Please read the following carefully, as it is lifted from the APNIC
> policy development process linked to above:
> 
> "Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial  
> objections raised during the "comment period". When the "comment  
> period" has expired, the appropriate SIG Chair (and Co-chairs) will  
> decide whether the discussions on the mailing list represent  
> continued consensus....... If it is observed that there have been  
> "substantial objections" raised to the proposed policy, consensus is  
> not confirmed and the proposal will not be implemented."
> 
> 
> According to the APNIC policy development process, it doesn't 
> matter if
> there was consensus at any previous stage of the process, substantial
> objections in the final comment period must lead to a decision by the
> SIG Chair that there is no consensus.
> 
> Substantial objections HAVE been raised, nobody can deny this. 
> 
> As per the documented policy development process, Izumi-san has quite
> rightly declared that consensus has not been reached, and this policy
> will not proceed in its current form.
> 
> As it stands, according to APNIC policy, this proposal cannot proceed
> and should not be considered by the EC, as we cannot proceed to step 5
> in the policy development process.
> 
> If you disagree, then you should propose a change to the policy
> development process at the next APNIC meeting. 
> 
> I hope this clarifies the situation.
> 

I can agree with some of you points, but not all.

I agree with making modification on the policy
development process, and some of the points above.

However, the two mistakes I pointed out still needs to be investigated.

Regards,

Chanki