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

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

excuse my being even more rudely american than usual.

> Chanki Park said the following on 23/11/05 17:43:

i do not receive chanki's messages, i am on the sig-policy
list, and i have checked my last week of spam archive.  this is
a problem.

<rant>

i strongly agree with chanki.  there is a real and serious
process problem.

the nirs held an nir meeting and voted themselves to not pay a
previously agreed fee.  [ apnic, could we please schedule an
lir meeting for perth so the lirs can vote ourselved out of
fees? ]

the matter went before the general policy membership and had
serious objection from non-nir folk, and support or silence
from the nir folk who voted themselves the savings [0].

chanki now wants to push the policy change through anyway,
despite objections in the meeting and on the mailing list.

yep, this is a real process problem.  no kidding.

</rant>

i think it would be most constructive to follow the lead of
folk such as izumi-san in trying to create a substitute fiscal
plan with which to replace the existing fee, as has been
discussed here a number of times.

randy

---

[0] - my apologies to izumi-san and maybe one or two other nir
      folk who actually are trying to follow apnic policy
      process.