There are some different opinions regarding this decisions.
It's a procedural matter.
Some people are getting together to discuss and decide
what should be proper way to proceed.
We can get back with wise answer, I hope.
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@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
