Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001]
Thank you very much for this response.
I was concerned that this proposal was on a track of adoption by APNIC without
further consultation with the membership and I am very reassured by this
undertaking that the EC will put this up for formal voting both on-site and
online via MyAPNIC.
While I will respond with a few more observations to the discussion on the
policy itself on the mailing list, I will note here that the major aspect of
my objection to the policy is now addressed by this undertaking from the EC
to pass this proposal to the membership for a formal vote.
Thank you, & regards,
Stephan Millet
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:44, Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
> [With my APNIC EC hat on]
>
> The new membership fee proposal for NIRs will be put up (by APNIC
> Secretariat/EC after enough discussion and consultation) for formal voting
> by all the members on-site or through online voting on MyAPNIC. I don't
> think it can be blocked by the people going to APNIC meetings. So, don't
> worry too much on this part. :)
>
> Che-Hoo
>
> --- MAEMURA Akinori <maem at maem dot org> wrote:
> > Stephan,
> >
> > Out of 2006, 2016 and 2026 the most realistic target should
> > be 2006 and this is a major assumption to take this interim
> > solution.
> >
> > We might have some unexpected delay, but in my mind, a
> > detailed proposal to be raised for discussion at APNIC21,
> > Perth Feb 2006, and to seek the membership concensus in the
> > next, APNIC22.
> >
> >
> > I am sad to see that you like to regard us NIR people doing
> > something badly political or playing a selfish process just
> > for our short-term benefit. We need to keep on convincing
> > you that we are reasonable enough.
> >
> >
> > With the EC hat on from now on,
> >
> > For the process, APNIC Secretariat is aware that concensus
> > in the on-site meeting is not enough to implement it into
> > the operation, while APNIC want more and more people come
> > to on-site meeting. That is why you have the room for
> > objection on the mailing list.
> >
> > Right now one or two strong objection are seen on the list
> > against on-site concensus, they may cease or we have some
> > more objections. Such situation will be reported and
> > reviewed by the EC for its endorsement.
> >
> > That's our process which is already in effect. IMHO
> > membership vote for all policy proposals would be unreasonably
> > heavy, but I'd like to have opinion from everyone.
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Akinori
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In message <200509271111.55014.stephan at telstra dot net>
> > "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001]
> > "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs""
> >
> > "Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net>" wrote:
> > | Thank you for your response, however I do not believe that
> > | you have addressed the major points of the objection I've raised.
> > |
> > | The IPv6 fee for NIRs is proposed to be abolished because
> > | it is "too complicated" . This does not strike me as a sensible
> > | reason to remove the fee.
> > |
> > | You call it an "interim solution". When does the new fee schedule
> > | arrive? 2006? 2016? 2026? It seems to me that once the NIRs get
> > | this IPv6 fee waived they have no interest to bring in any new fees
> > | in the future. With the current policy process then all they need
> > | to do is to keep sending their people to APNIC meetings and they
> > | will block any new fee proposal indefinitely.
> > |
> > | I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the
> > | NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the
> > | entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy
> > | proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour.
> > |
> > | Regards
> > |
> > | Stephan Millet
> > |
> > | On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:41, MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
> > | > I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having
> > | > that.
> > | >
> > | > However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say
> > | > like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too
> > | > complicated and it should be abolished. Thus it sounds
> > | > as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous
> > | > effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders
> > | > into APNIC's policy process.
> > | >
> > | >
> > | > That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10%
> > | > of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of
> > | > APNIC's revenue. NIRs said "to simplify" after they know
> > | > the size of impact. Moreover it is for interim solution
> > | > until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think
> > | > current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations.
> > | >
> > | >
> > | >
> > | > Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion
> > | > in order to have the same picture of this issue.
> > | >
> > | > Keep on discussing.
> > | >
> > | >
> > | > Regards,
> > | > -----
> > | > MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department
> > | > maem at maem dot org , maem at nic dot ad dot jp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sig-nir mailing list
> > sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>
> _______________________________________________
> sig-nir mailing list
> sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
--
Stephan Millet
Telstra Internet Networking Development
INOC-DBA 1221*247
ph# +61 2 6208 1681
mob# +61 408 058 018