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

[David Chen <david@twnic.net.tw>]

Chanki Park wrote:

> > Okay, there is no end to this discussions.
> >
> >    
>
> This is wrong again.
> Your subjective view is involved here again.
> Some of the members still want to discuss.
>
> You should not intervene the discussion.
> (Open, transparent... you know the stuff)
>  
I don't think it is a wrong decision. We respect your different view, 
but it does not mean that we should accept your view. This issue needs 
more discussion to gather further ideas and let non-nir people 
understanding the really intension of the proposal. However, according 
to current policy process and 8 weeks time limitation, I support to make 
the decision at this stage. I know the decision is controversial, so I 
think if we leave it to EC to review the case, it would be a better way 
to relieve some arguments. In the meantime, we could also continue to 
discuss the NIR fee issue in mailing list to approach the same view with 
each other.

Regards,
David

>  
>
> > Let's confirm with the EC whether it was the wrong decision as I
> > mentioned on the mailing list yesterday.
> >
> > Dear EC members on the list,
> > Would you please review the decision and the process and 
> > provide us with
> > your position on whether the consensus decision was unrighteously
> > declared as some members on this mailing list believe?
> >
> >    
>
> This part is wrong again.
>
> If you look at the policy development process at
> http://apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/process.html,
> this discussion can not go to EC at this point.
>
>
> What do you expect from EC.
> Are they gods?, judges?
>
> You have to provide more information than above when
> the discussion is over among members
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chanki
>
>
>
>  
>
> > Regards,
> > Izumi Okutani
> > NIR SIG Chair
> >
> > Stephan Millet wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > > Good...
> > > >
> > > > However, we have to fix the mistake first.
> > > >        
> > > And the mistake being what ??? We don't agree with the 
> > >      
> > KRNIC position ?
> >    
> >
> > > Stephan Millet
> > >
> > > *              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
>
>