Re: (瑞星提示-此邮件可能是垃圾邮件)Re: [sig-policy] Final call

["Edward Chen" <chentao@cnnic.net.cn>]

Thanks,Anne.

Tao Chen
CNNIC
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anne Lord" <anne@apnic.net>
To: "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem@maem.org>
Cc: <izumi@nic.ad.jp>; <sig-policy@apnic.net>; "Edward Chen" <chentao@cnnic.net.cn>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 10:17 AM
Subject: (瑞星提示-此邮件可能是垃圾邮件)Re: [sig-policy] Final call


> Hi all,
> 
> I would just like to clarify what may be a slight misunderstanding here.
> 
> The role of the EC in the policy making process is to endorse the
> proposals put before them. The proposals put before the EC will only be
> those where consensus has been determined both at the meeting and on the
> mailing list. The EC has to determine if due process has been followed.
> On all the consensus proposals put to the EC, they are also obligated to
> ensure none will adversely affect APNIC as an organisation.
> 
> It is the role of the *SIG chair*, to determine after the 8 week comment
> period on the mailing list, if consensus has been reached or not. The
> end of the comment period for this proposal is on 16th November.
> (http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-028-v001.html)
> 
> Save outlined the process in an early email to this list:
> 
> "It is now subject to the following three steps:
> 
> 3. Discussion after the OPM - this current 8 week comment period
> 4. Confirming consensus - where the appropriate SIG Chair will need to
>    determine whether the proposal has reached consensus, or whether
>    substantial objections mean that consensus has not been confirmed, and:
> 5. Endorsement from the Executive Council
> 
> I hope this helps,
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Anne
> --
> 
> 
> Edward Chen wrote:
>> Thank you for your reply,Mr.Akinori
>> 
>> CNNIC does not charge pre address fee for IPv6,because we
>> think low fee schedule benefits members who want to deploy IPv6 
>> network.
>> 
>> In fact,we have no many IPv6 addresses now,so this proposal
>> has no serious effect on us,but we think this proposal
>> can promote IPv6 network deployment in the future,so we 
>> support it.The proposal text expresses our view point.
>> 
>> Tao Chen
>> CNNIC
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem@maem.org>
>> To: <chentao@cnnic.net.cn>; <izumi@nic.ad.jp>; <sig-policy@apnic.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: [sig-policy] Final call
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>Tao,
>>>
>>>Yes, the Executive Council has to make the decision on this 
>>>proposal anyhow this discussion will go.  Right now I see
>>>that while NIR people think it reasonable for the whole 
>>>membership, several people don't think so.  I suppose the
>>>people on this discussion might not have the same picture
>>>of the background of this proposal.  
>>>
>>>I think we have some more room to fill the gap before 
>>>leaving it to the process.  I'd like NIR people to add 
>>>some more words to those who are against.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you for your understanding.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Akinori @ maybe with EC hat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>In message <329011322.28213@cnnic.cn>
>>>  "Re: Re: [sig-policy] Final call"
>>>  ""Edward Chen" <chentao@cnnic.net.cn>" wrote:
>>>
>>>| Because we have reached consensus at AMM,now that there is some
>>>| diverge in mailing list,I suggest that we should leave the proposal
>>>| to EC members to decide whether pass the proposal or not?I believe
>>>| they will be care of all member's interests no matter a member belongs
>>>| to APNIC or NIR.
>>>| 
>>>| Tao Chen
>>>| CNNIC    
>>>| ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>| From: "Izumi Okutani" <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
>>>| To: <sig-policy@apnic.net>
>>>| Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:37 PM
>>>| Subject: (?$B%)%a(B??$B%:(B?-???????????????$B!&(Bl???)Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs"
>>>| 
>>>| 
>>>| >> I concur with Randy, and as I am sure you already know, I am against the 
>>>| >> proposal.
>>>| > :-) Thank you all for expressing your opinions.
>>>| > 
>>>| > I note that all of the non-NIR people who have expressed comments on the
>>>| > list believe we should postpone the proposal until we come up with an
>>>| > alternative fee structure.
>>>| > 
>>>| > If NIRs still feel that the proposal should be implemented *at this
>>>| > particular time*, could somebody from an NIR(or NIRs) can explain the
>>>| > reason for this?
>>>| > 
>>>| > Otherwise, the discussions will be parallel between NIRs/NIR members and
>>>| > the rest of APNIC memebers, so I think we should re-consider this proposal.
>>>| > 
>>>| > 
>>>| > Izumi
>>>| > 
>>>| >> Stephan Millet
>>>| >> 
>>>| >> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 06:07, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>| >> 
>>>| >>>i can not support the proposal unless it is accompanied by
>>>| >>>a replacement proposal.  it just makes no business sense
>>>| >>>without that.
>>>| >>>
>>>| >>>randy
>>>| >>>
>>>| >>>*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy        
>>>| >>>  * _______________________________________________
>>>| >>>sig-policy mailing list
>>>| >>>sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>>| >>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>>| >> 
>>>| >> 
>>>| >> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
>>>| >> _______________________________________________
>>>| >> sig-policy mailing list
>>>| >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>>| >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>>| >> 
>>>| > 
>>>| > 
>>>| > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
>>>| > _______________________________________________
>>>| > sig-policy mailing list
>>>| > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>>| > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>>| 
>>>| *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
>>>| _______________________________________________
>>>| sig-policy mailing list
>>>| sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>>| http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>>|
>> 
>> 
>> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> 
> -- 
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Anne Lord, Communications Director                   <anne@apnic.net>
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)  Tel: +61-7-3858-3100
> PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia           Fax: +61-7-3858-3199
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------