Hi Chanki,
[...]
Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial
enough to reverse the process?
1,000 members didn't participate in the discussions. Also, I don't think
consensus can be judged just in terms of the numbers. As I menioned in
my earlier mail, I have looked at the status of the discussions on the
mailing list, and from the state of it, I judged that we need more
discussions over this proposal.
I totally understand that NIRs have problems with the IPv6 current fee
scheme, and I'm not trying to ignore this.
All I am saying is let's have more discussions also with the people have
expressed concerns over the proposal and come up with a way which is
more agreeable to more people.
[...]
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.
- The logical error(observing small part but concluding in full,)
- 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.
I've requested for the EC reviwed in my earlier mail, so let's wait to
hear their position.
Izumi