Stephan,
Out of 2006, 2016 and 2026 the most realistic target should
be 2006 and this is a major assumption to take this interim
solution.
We might have some unexpected delay, but in my mind, a
detailed proposal to be raised for discussion at APNIC21,
Perth Feb 2006, and to seek the membership concensus in the
next, APNIC22.
I am sad to see that you like to regard us NIR people doing
something badly political or playing a selfish process just
for our short-term benefit. We need to keep on convincing
you that we are reasonable enough.
With the EC hat on from now on,
For the process, APNIC Secretariat is aware that concensus
in the on-site meeting is not enough to implement it into
the operation, while APNIC want more and more people come
to on-site meeting. That is why you have the room for
objection on the mailing list.
Right now one or two strong objection are seen on the list
against on-site concensus, they may cease or we have some
more objections. Such situation will be reported and
reviewed by the EC for its endorsement.
That's our process which is already in effect. IMHO
membership vote for all policy proposals would be unreasonably
heavy, but I'd like to have opinion from everyone.
Kind Regards,
Akinori
In message 200509271111.55014.stephan@telstra.net
"Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs""
"Stephan Millet stephan@telstra.net" wrote:
| Thank you for your response, however I do not believe that
| you have addressed the major points of the objection I've raised.
|
| The IPv6 fee for NIRs is proposed to be abolished because
| it is "too complicated" . This does not strike me as a sensible
| reason to remove the fee.
|
| You call it an "interim solution". When does the new fee schedule
| arrive? 2006? 2016? 2026? It seems to me that once the NIRs get
| this IPv6 fee waived they have no interest to bring in any new fees
| in the future. With the current policy process then all they need
| to do is to keep sending their people to APNIC meetings and they
| will block any new fee proposal indefinitely.
|
| I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the
| NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the
| entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy
| proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour.
|
| Regards
|
| Stephan Millet
|
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:41, MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
| > I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having
| > that.
| >
| > However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say
| > like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too
| > complicated and it should be abolished. Thus it sounds
| > as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous
| > effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders
| > into APNIC's policy process.
| >
| >
| > That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10%
| > of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of
| > APNIC's revenue. NIRs said "to simplify" after they know
| > the size of impact. Moreover it is for interim solution
| > until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think
| > current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations.
| >
| >
| >
| > Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion
| > in order to have the same picture of this issue.
| >
| > Keep on discussing.
| >
| >
| > Regards,
| > -----
| > MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department
| > maem@maem.org , maem@nic.ad.jp
|
|