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?
Sure,
The [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs" proposal went
through the following steps.
1) The proposal was drafted by NIR community and discussed on NIR SIG M/L.
2) The proposal was discussed at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
* We had a few objections, but consensus was reached among NIR members.
3) NIR SIG Chair reported at the APNIC Member Meeting.
* There were a few objections, but the consensus was also reached.
4) The proposal is went through 8 weeks comments period.
* We had four objections.
At this point, split opinions were observed :
Some says four objection is good enough to declare "There is no consensus",
and some says "four objections during comment period is not good enough to
declare no consensus"
1. Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
2. What is the meaning of "consensus"?
3. What is the importance of "8 week comment period"?
(The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during comment period.)
Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision was published
that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your detailed reasoning on
the
decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members,
I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
If not, I think we have to pause here and build a new process.
(I looked at the APNIC policy process, there is no process
if final announcement goes into discussion)
There were many alternative way to deal with this situation instead of
declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide
postpone the announcement and have open discussion with
the people who objects
and so forth...
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?
I am not sure if NIRs had ever operated in secret. At first, just like any
other
policy proposal, only a few people who are interested got together drafted
the proposal based on their discussion.
However, after that things went open, discussed on open NIR SIG M/L
as well as face to face APNIC Open Policy Meeting. We followed APNIC
policy development process. If you look at the APNIC web site, it's there.
We can get back with wise answer, I hope.
No one can achieve wisdom when existing in isolation.
Now I am seeking members wisdom openly, will it do? :)
Regards,
Chanki Park
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@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir