Hi all,

I would just like to clarify what may be a slight misunderstanding here.

The role of the EC in the policy making process is to endorse the proposals put before them. The proposals put before the EC will only be those where consensus has been determined both at the meeting and on the mailing list. The EC has to determine if due process has been followed. On all the consensus proposals put to the EC, they are also obligated to ensure none will adversely affect APNIC as an organisation.

It is the role of the *SIG chair*, to determine after the 8 week comment period on the mailing list, if consensus has been reached or not. The end of the comment period for this proposal is on 16th November. (http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-028-v001.html)

Save outlined the process in an early email to this list:

"It is now subject to the following three steps:

3. Discussion after the OPM - this current 8 week comment period 4. Confirming consensus - where the appropriate SIG Chair will need to determine whether the proposal has reached consensus, or whether substantial objections mean that consensus has not been confirmed, and: 5. Endorsement from the Executive Council

I hope this helps,

Best wishes,

Anne --

Edward Chen wrote:

Thank you for your reply,Mr.Akinori

CNNIC does not charge pre address fee for IPv6,because we think low fee schedule benefits members who want to deploy IPv6 network.

In fact,we have no many IPv6 addresses now,so this proposal has no serious effect on us,but we think this proposal can promote IPv6 network deployment in the future,so we support it.The proposal text expresses our view point.

Tao Chen CNNIC ----- Original Message ----- From: "MAEMURA Akinori" maem@maem.org To: chentao@cnnic.net.cn; izumi@nic.ad.jp; sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:38 PM Subject: Re: Re: [sig-policy] Final call

...

Tao,

Yes, the Executive Council has to make the decision on this proposal anyhow this discussion will go. Right now I see that while NIR people think it reasonable for the whole membership, several people don't think so. I suppose the people on this discussion might not have the same picture of the background of this proposal.

I think we have some more room to fill the gap before leaving it to the process. I'd like NIR people to add some more words to those who are against.

Thank you for your understanding.

Regards, Akinori @ maybe with EC hat

In message 329011322.28213@cnnic.cn "Re: Re: [sig-policy] Final call" ""Edward Chen" chentao@cnnic.net.cn" wrote:

| Because we have reached consensus at AMM,now that there is some | diverge in mailing list,I suggest that we should leave the proposal | to EC members to decide whether pass the proposal or not?I believe | they will be care of all member's interests no matter a member belongs | to APNIC or NIR. | | Tao Chen | CNNIC | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Izumi Okutani" izumi@nic.ad.jp | To: sig-policy@apnic.net | Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:37 PM | Subject: (??$B%)%a?(B???$B%:?(B?-????????????????$B!&?(Bl???)Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs" | | | >> I concur with Randy, and as I am sure you already know, I am against the | >> proposal. | > :-) Thank you all for expressing your opinions. | > | > I note that all of the non-NIR people who have expressed comments on the | > list believe we should postpone the proposal until we come up with an | > alternative fee structure. | > | > If NIRs still feel that the proposal should be implemented *at this | > particular time*, could somebody from an NIR(or NIRs) can explain the | > reason for this? | > | > Otherwise, the discussions will be parallel between NIRs/NIR members and | > the rest of APNIC memebers, so I think we should re-consider this proposal. | > | > | > Izumi | > | >> Stephan Millet | >> | >> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 06:07, Randy Bush wrote: | >> | >>>i can not support the proposal unless it is accompanied by | >>>a replacement proposal. it just makes no business sense | >>>without that. | >>> | >>>randy | >>> | >>>* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy | >>> * _______________________________________________ | >>>sig-policy mailing list | >>>sig-policy@lists.apnic.net | >>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy | >> | >> | >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * | >> _______________________________________________ | >> sig-policy mailing list | >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net | >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy | >> | > | > | > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * | > _______________________________________________ | > sig-policy mailing list | > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net | > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy | | * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * | _______________________________________________ | sig-policy mailing list | sig-policy@lists.apnic.net | http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy |

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
  

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