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
management policy *
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy