sig-nir November 2005

sig-nir@lists.apnic.net

7 participants
9 discussions

Regarding the no consensus decision of PROP-028-v001
by MAEMURA Akinori 30 Nov '05

30 Nov '05

Dear all, During its telephone conference meeting of 25 November 2005, and APNIC EC discussed the current situation regarding proposal "prop-028-v001", calling for the abolition of per- address fees for NIRs. The EC recognised that under the APNIC policy development process there is no requirement for this matter to be discussed by the EC, because the SIG chair has reached a judgement of "no consensus" on this matter The EC however discussed the matter, and it saw no reason to question the judgement of the SIG chair regarding consensus within the NIR SIG. It must be concluded therefore that the decision of the SIG chair stands, and that further discussion of the proposal will continue on the sig-nir mailing list toward the consensus in the next APNIC21. Regards, MAEMURA Akinori Chair, APNIC Executive Council

1 0

APNIC EC endorses policy decisions from APNIC20
by Save Vocea 29 Nov '05

29 Nov '05

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, At their teleconference on 25 November, the APNIC Executive Council (EC) considered the policy proposals which had reached consensus at both APNIC 20 and during the subsequent comment period on the mailing lists. The proposals endorsed by the EC are listed below: [prop-005-v005] - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to Regional Internet Registries [prop-030-v002] - Deprecation of ip6.int reverse DNS service in APNIC [prop-031-v002] - Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement policy Details of each policy proposal, presentations, and minutes of the SIG and Member Meeting discussions are available on the policy proposal index page at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals This is the final stage in the policy development process before implementation. These policies were developed in accordance with the policy development process for the Asia Pacific region. More details on this process can be found at the URL below: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/ Regards -- Savenaca Vocea, Policy Development Manager, <save(a)apnic.net> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99

1 0

RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"
by Philip Smith 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

Hi, >Dear all, > >There are some different opinions regarding this decisions. > >It's a procedural matter. Procedural matter? Can you explain what you mean by this? >Some people are getting together to discuss and decide >what should be proper way to proceed. Ah. So in the APNIC Open Policy process, the NIRs operate in secret, making decisions behind closed doors, and then presenting those decisions to the world. How very open... Why can't the discussion happen on this mailing list?? That's what it's for!? As far as I remember, several ideas had been presented, so why are the NIRs afraid to discuss these ideas in public? >We can get back with wise answer, I hope. No one can achieve wisdom when existing in isolation. philip -- > >Regards, > >Chanki Park > > Dear All, > > > Regarding [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs", > I would like to conclude that although strong support was > expressed from > a few members of the community, there is no clear general > consensus for > the proposal. > > Thank you all for participating in the discussions. > > Observations: > ------------- > There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on > this proposal. > > 4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) > 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) > 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members) > > Major comments: > ---------------- > + It is not fair for the rest of the membership to abolish > the fee just > for NIRs > + NIRs are proposing to abolish the fee because the current fee > structure is not fair for the NIRs > + Questions were raised over why it needs to be dealt with > immediately > rather than waiting until the new fee structure takes place > + It does not make sense as business practice to abolish the existing > fee structure without a replacement plan. The proposal cannnot be > supported unless there is a replacement on the fee structure, or > substitute the financial loss > > Conclusion: > ----------- > There is no clear general consensus for the proposal. > > Reasons: > -------- > + Points which have not been addressed at the meeting was > raised on the > mailing list which implies no enough discussions took place at the > meeting > > + Those who have expressed support for the proposal are the proposers, > or those who benefit from the proposal. > > + Only unsupportive comments were expressed from those who do not > benefit from this proposal. One support was expressed conditionally, > but this condition was not met. > > + Proposer has not responded to suggestions expressed by > those who were > opposed to the proposal. > (the proposer does not need to take in the suggestions but should be > able to explain why their proposal is better than the > suggestions, or > suggestions would not solve the issue they face) > > Side Note: > ---------- > The needs of the proposer can be acknowledged, but the > proposal needs to > be more agreeable to the rest of the APNIC community. > > > Best Regards, > > Izumi Okutani and David Chen > > _______________________________________________ > sig-nir mailing list > sig-nir(a)lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir >

6 28

RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"
by Chanki Park 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

> > > "The announced chair's final decision contains serious error and > > it should be fixed." > > This is an interesting discussion, however, there is no > "serious error" > as you put it. > > For a sense of perspective, I would urge everyone to re-read the APNIC > policy development process at: > http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/policy-development.html#Step-4 > > In particular, step 4 answers the very question being thrown around in > this thread. Ie. When is consensus confirmed? > > Please read the following carefully, as it is lifted from the APNIC > policy development process linked to above: > > "Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial > objections raised during the "comment period". When the "comment > period" has expired, the appropriate SIG Chair (and Co-chairs) will > decide whether the discussions on the mailing list represent > continued consensus....... If it is observed that there have been > "substantial objections" raised to the proposed policy, consensus is > not confirmed and the proposal will not be implemented." > > > According to the APNIC policy development process, it doesn't > matter if > there was consensus at any previous stage of the process, substantial > objections in the final comment period must lead to a decision by the > SIG Chair that there is no consensus. > > Substantial objections HAVE been raised, nobody can deny this. > > As per the documented policy development process, Izumi-san has quite > rightly declared that consensus has not been reached, and this policy > will not proceed in its current form. > > As it stands, according to APNIC policy, this proposal cannot proceed > and should not be considered by the EC, as we cannot proceed to step 5 > in the policy development process. > > If you disagree, then you should propose a change to the policy > development process at the next APNIC meeting. > > I hope this clarifies the situation. > I can agree with some of you points, but not all. I agree with making modification on the policy development process, and some of the points above. However, the two mistakes I pointed out still needs to be investigated. Regards, Chanki

1 0

Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re:Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"
by Izumi Okutani 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

Hi Eugene, >>Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial >>enough to reverse the process? > Good point. > > Also, as I remeber, there were more than 20 hands showing their supporting and > only less than 5 showing the other way. Why that cannot be judged as CONSENSUS in > the VietNam meeting ? Because that's how the process is defined. The following is what Save has explained over why we have "8 week comment period". http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/archive/2005/11/msg00006.html (snip) > 3. What is the importance of "8 week comment period"? > (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during comment period.) The 8-week comment period is an essential part of the process, for 2 reasons: to allow proper consideration of the decision of the meeting; and to allow people who have not attended the meeting to participate. The discussion on the mailing list has no more or less weight than the discussion in the meeting. (snip) Izumi lixiangjian(a)cnnic.cn wrote: > > > : > >>From: "Chanki Park" <ckp(a)nic.or.kr> >>Reply-To: >>To: "'Izumi Okutani'" <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> >>Subject: RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: > > Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs" > >>Date:Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:19 +0900 >> >> >>>Hi Chanki, >>> >>> >>> >>>>The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period >>>>because the observation is only that narrow period. >>>>(The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were >>> >>>totally ignored) >>> >>>>BIG MISTAKE!!! >>> >>>According to my understanding of the process, the whole idea of having >>>the final comment period on the mailing list is to confirm if it is >>>really okay to go ahead with the meeting consensus. If there are >>>substantial objections on the mailing list, the meeting >>>consensus can be >>>reversed. >> >>Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial >>enough to reverse the process? >> > > > > > Good point. > > Also, as I remeber, there were more than 20 hands showing their supporting and > only less than 5 showing the other way. Why that cannot be judged as CONSENSUS in > the VietNam meeting ? > > > > Eugene from CNNIC > > > > >>>>So the conclusion had to be something like this : >>>> >>>>Reasoning >>>>1. The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting. >>>>2. The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting. >>>>3. It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during >>> >>>8 week comment >>> >>>>period. >>>> "There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this >>> >>>proposal. >>> >>>> 4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) >>>> 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) >>>> 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR >>> >>>APNIC members)" >>> >>>>conclusion >>>>There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but >>> >>>consensus has been >>> >>>>reached. >>>> >>>>Comments are welcomed on above observations. >>>> >>>>IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to >>>>APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through >>>>proper steps with consensus. >>>>(There were some chances to proposal, but it went through >>> >>>as it is now) >>> >>>>Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please. >>> >>>I understand you have a different opinion over whether the >>>objections on >>>the mailing list was "substantial", but this is just a >>>difference in our >>>opinions. I can't declare consensus when I believe more >>>discussions are >>>needed. >>> >> >>You have to modify the announcement and declare it again. >>Because it contains SERIOUS LOGICAL error. >> >>As I mentioned earlier you only observed small part but concluded in full, >>which means you only looked eyes but described whole face. There is >>no credence in that description. >> >>Two errors have to be fixed. >>1. The logical error(observing small part but concluding in full,) >>2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1. >> >> >>>I'm sure your opinion on the mailing list will be reviewed by the EC >>>too, so why don't we leave it upto the EC to make the final decision? >> >>The proposal can not go to EC unless you withdraw your announcement >>and correct the mistake and publish. >> >>Please, correct the mistakes. >> >>Regards, >> >>Chanki >> >>_______________________________________________ >>sig-nir mailing list >>sig-nir(a)lists.apnic.net >>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir >> > > > >

1 0

Re: RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re:
by Izumi Okutani 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

Edward Chen wrote: > I think the we miss one support vote,in fact the statistic number is > > > > 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) > 1 persons supported the proposal.( non-NIR) > 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR) > 4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) > > Please be careful to make survey If you mean about the support expressed from Ram, I have counted as "1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR) ". In anycase, I have not judged consensus simply in terms of numbers, but also looked into the discussions on the mailing list when I made the decision. Izumi > Tao Chen > CNNIC > > >>2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chanki Park" <ckp(a)nic.or.kr> > To: "'Izumi Okutani'" <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Cc: "'David Chen'" <david(a)twnic.net.tw>; <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net>; <sig-nir(a)lists.apnic.net> > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 9:50 AM > Subject: ()RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs" > > > >>>Hi Chanki, >>> >>> >>> >>>>The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period >>>>because the observation is only that narrow period. >>>>(The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were >>> >>>totally ignored) >>> >>>>BIG MISTAKE!!! >>> >>>According to my understanding of the process, the whole idea of having >>>the final comment period on the mailing list is to confirm if it is >>>really okay to go ahead with the meeting consensus. If there are >>>substantial objections on the mailing list, the meeting >>>consensus can be >>>reversed. >> >>Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial >>enough to reverse the process? >> >> >>>>So the conclusion had to be something like this : >>>> >>>>Reasoning >>>>1. The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting. >>>>2. The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting. >>>>3. It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during >>> >>>8 week comment >>> >>>>period. >>>> "There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this >>> >>>proposal. >>> >>>> 4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) >>>> 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) >>>> 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR >>> >>>APNIC members)" >>> >>>>conclusion >>>>There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but >>> >>>consensus has been >>> >>>>reached. >>>> >>>>Comments are welcomed on above observations. >>>> >>>>IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to >>>>APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through >>>>proper steps with consensus. >>>>(There were some chances to proposal, but it went through >>> >>>as it is now) >>> >>>>Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please. >>> >>>I understand you have a different opinion over whether the >>>objections on >>>the mailing list was "substantial", but this is just a >>>difference in our >>>opinions. I can't declare consensus when I believe more >>>discussions are >>>needed. >>> >> >>You have to modify the announcement and declare it again. >>Because it contains SERIOUS LOGICAL error. >> >>As I mentioned earlier you only observed small part but concluded in full, >>which means you only looked eyes but described whole face. There is >>no credence in that description. >> >>Two errors have to be fixed. >>1. The logical error(observing small part but concluding in full,) >>2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1. >> >> >>>I'm sure your opinion on the mailing list will be reviewed by the EC >>>too, so why don't we leave it upto the EC to make the final decision? >> >>The proposal can not go to EC unless you withdraw your announcement >>and correct the mistake and publish. >> >>Please, correct the mistakes. >> >>Regards, >> >>Chanki >> >>_______________________________________________ >>sig-nir mailing list >>sig-nir(a)lists.apnic.net >>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >

1 0

Re: [sig-nir] Re: Re: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion
by Izumi Okutani 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

Hi Tao Chen, Edward Chen wrote: > I am from CNNIC,my name is Tao Chen. > > I also think we should clarify the definition of "Consensus" .As I know,there ara always some persons who oppose each > proposal,no matter the proposal is relative to him or not.But sometimes the chair seems to be hard to decide whether > the proposal reaches the consensus or not.So I hope we can reach consensus about the definition of "Consensus" at first. The issue you are pointing out seems to be about the problem over the current definition of consensus, and not about the proposal itself. This is beyond the discussions of the NIR SIG, so I suggest you to make a proposal at the policy sig, or provide feedbacks to the APNIC secretariat. > Another question is if a proposal does not reach consensus,does it mean there is no problem at all or the proposal is > not worthy to continue discussion.In other words,if there is big divarication among APNIC member,should we stop it here only by saying "we can not reach consensus" or should we reflect the situation to EC members and get some positive opinion from them.I do not think sarcasm can resolve the problem.In fact,KRNIC reflects a important problem to APNIC communities,if we want to work out it ,we should think how to deal with the question above. Sure, I certainly understand the needs of the NIRs, which was why I have suggested to form a working group to continue discussions. So the answer to your question is yes, we can continue discussions even after "no-consensus" is declared over the proposal. Izumi > Tao Chen > CNNIC > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Philip Smith" <pfs(a)cisco.com> > To: "Chanki Park" <ckp(a)nic.or.kr> > Cc: <sig-nir(a)lists.apnic.net>; <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net> > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 7:15 AM > Subject: ()Re: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs" > > > >>Chanki Park said the following on 24/11/05 16:31: >> >>>My only agenda is correcting a mistake. >> >>And what mistake may that be? That KRNIC/NIDA can't get its own way all >>the time? >> >>While KRNIC/NIDA may dictate to its membership what does and doesn't >>happen in Korea, this is not what happens in the rest of the Internet. >> >>Did you consult with your membership in an open forum about all the >>APNIC policy proposals which were proposed in Hanoi? Not that I can find >>any evidence of, that's for sure. >> >>I don't recall anyone from KRNIC standing up at the APNIC meeting and >>saying "we discussed this with our membership, and X% thought it was a >>great idea, and Y% thought is was bad". I recall one NIR that gave this >>sort of input, and they are to be congratulated for encouraging open >>dialogue within the community. >> >>So KRNIC/NIDA clearly makes decisions on what is good and bad for its >>membership. Same way as you clearly now want to make decisions on what >>is good and bad for the APNIC membership. >> >> >>>And if we need, examine(or elaborate) our policy development process. >> >>Ah yes, the new policy which says that everything that KRNIC wants is >>automatically approved regardless of people's opinions? Mmmm, I can see >>that one being very popular (not!). >> >>philip >>-- >>* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * >>_______________________________________________ >>sig-policy mailing list >>sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > > _______________________________________________ > sig-nir mailing list > sig-nir(a)lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir >

1 0

Re: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion
by Philip Smith 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

Hi, Edward Chen said the following on 25/11/05 11:35: > > I also think we should clarify the definition of "Consensus" . My understanding of consensus is: "A position or opinion reached by a group". http://www.answers.com/topic/consensus supports this. Having 4 for, 4 against, and >100 people offering no opinion doesn't sound like consensus to me. Does the silence of the >100 mean they consent? Or were they too busy reading e-mail or IMing their friends? Maybe APNIC need to consider banning laptops and removing the network from the conference room so that everyone pays attention in future? > As I know,there ara always some persons who oppose each > proposal,no matter the proposal is relative to him or not. Ah, so you are claiming that because the NIR proposal is only relevant to the NIRs, that only the NIRs have a right to vote on it? Wow! > But sometimes the chair seems to be hard to decide whether > the proposal reaches the consensus or not.So I hope we can reach consensus about the definition of "Consensus" at first. The chairs have an impossible task, I don't envy it at all. We should all be supporting them in the very difficult job they have to do. > Another question is if a proposal does not reach consensus,does it mean there is no problem at all or the proposal is > not worthy to continue discussion. My take is that if there is an even balance of opinions for and against, with lots of lively discussion, then I think the proposal is definitely worth revisiting until an optimum solution is reached. On the other hand, if the proposal is laughed out of the room, or has a majority against, I think it is fairly obvious that the proposal is dead. > In other words,if there is big divarication among APNIC member,should we stop it here only by saying "we can not reach consensus" or should we reflect the situation to EC members and get some positive opinion from them.I do not think sarcasm can resolve the problem.In fact,KRNIC reflects a important problem to APNIC communities,if we want to work out it ,we should think how to deal with the question above. No one is being sarcastic. There is a very serious issue at stake here, namely that KRNIC want to railroad their opinions through, bypassing the APNIC policy process, simply because it suits them. philip --

1 0

Reminder of the comment period Re: [sig-policy]Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfee forNIRs"
by Izumi Okutani 22 Nov '05

22 Nov '05

Dear All, This is a reminder that the final comment period for the proposal; [prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfee forNIRs" http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-028-v001.html will close in a week from today. Past discussions can be followed by refering to "sig-nir" and "sig-policy" mailing list archives since September this year. http://www.apnic.net/community/lists/index.html If there is anyone who would like to express their opinion about this proposal, please voice your opinion on the "sig-nir" mailing list by 16th Nov. Thanks. Best Regards, Izumi Okutani NIR SIG Chair Izumi Okutani wrote: > Hi Thu Thuy and Nhung, > > Thank you for expressing your position for this proposal. > > The situation at the moment is that there is a split in opinions between > NIRs/NIR members and some of the other APNIC members. > > I acknowledge NIRs/NIR members' needs, but I really don't think we can > move on unless the other APNIC members are more comfortable with it. > > Judging from the comments received so far, the concern here is that > abolishing(actually, "waiver" is a more accurate word) should take place > with more concrete planning and should make sense business-wise. > > Suggestions from these members had been: > + Present more concrete plan for the long term fee revision at the same > time > + come up with a plan which absorbs the 1% impact on APNIC's > budget(zero impact on APNIC budget) > > I recommend NIRs to address this area in your proposal so that it would > be more agreeable to other APNIC members. > > > Izumi > > Phan Thi Nhung wrote: > >>Dear all, >>VNNIC support this proposal. Actually, to promote our member to deploy IPV6, VNNIC do not charge IPV6 per address fee. In our opinion, what LIRs does't have to pay if they are APNIC member they will not have to pay when becoming VNNIC member. >>Nhung. >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Thu Thuy >> To: sig-policy(a)apnic.net >> Cc: Izumi Okutani ; wei chenguang >> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 8:58 AM >> Subject: Re: Re:[sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfee forNIRs" >> >> >> Hi, all >> >> I personnally support this proposal because it takes a role in promotion ipv6 utilisation in the early period of the new Internet Protocol. >> >> Thu Thuy. >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: wei chenguang >> To: Izumi Okutani ; sig-policy(a)apnic.net >> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 2:26 PM >> Subject: Re: Re:[sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfee for NIRs" >> >> >> I support the proposal. I think it's fair for all people who want to apply IP address. >> >> >> >> ======== 2005-10-07 16:54:42 ======== >> >> The mailing list is very quiet now, but I'm interesed to hear opinions >> again on how people feel about this proposal after some discussions. >> >> a) against the proposal >> b) support the proposal >> c) doesn't mind either way >> d) other opinion >> >> If possible, it would also help if you could also explain the reason for >> your position. Thanks! >> >> Izumi >> > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >

2 2

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-nir November 2005