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

[Stephan Millet <stephan@telstra.net>]

Chanki,

> > APNIC members take note, KRNIC clearly have another agenda here.
>
> My only agenda is correcting a mistake.
>
> And if we need, examine(or elaborate) our policy development process.
>

So if I understand this correctly, you believe that it is a "mistake" to 
object to a proposal that has evidently been sponsored by KRNIC.

Not all of us can attend every APNIC meetings and I for one certainly 
appreciate the opportunity to comment on the mailing list following an APNIC 
meeting.

Yes, I have studied this proposal carefully and I believe there are valid 
grounds for objecting to it's adoption. 

I do not appreciate such objections being blandly brushed aside, as in your 
previous note, and a unilateral declaration that KRNIC's proposal stands. 
Such a declaration is not consistent with an open process seeking consensus 
across all significant view points.

Should we be considering a "one member, one vote" process for all APNIC policy 
proposals ? Or is there a way to find common ground without resorting to such 
formalisms at every step ? I fear that if "consensus" means "we must agree 
with KRNIC" every time, then there is a strong case for using voting to 
truely determine the membership will. To my mind it would be better if we 
made an honest attempt to understand what is the most appropriate way forward 
that has the support of the broad membership base rather than being forced to 
adopt proposals that advance only the sectorial interests of a very small 
number of members at the expense of the rest of us.


Regards

Stephan Millet