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
|
