[sig-nir] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "Abolishing IPv6 per
The basis of this objection is that it is not reflective of the position of
the entire membership, but is a self-serving policy that merely serves the
interests of a small number of National Registries, at the ultimate cost of
the entire remainder of the membership. If the National Registries pay less
then all the rest of the membership will pay more. I see no reason why these
small number of privileged members whose total contribution to APNIC is
less than 10% of the finances can dictate the direction of the entire
membership organization. The rest of us can't afford to attend in person
these meetings in exotic locations, and because we can't attend we can't
vote against such unfair policy proposals that serve only the financial
interests of national registries while the rest of us end up having to pay
more.
If I understand the transcript of the members' meeting on Friday the
rational for this proposal is that the Japanese think that the existing
IPv6 fees are "too complicated". This is complete nonsense! Are they that
simple-minded that they cannot understand the fee schedule? Does this "too
complicated" excuse set a precedent for the rest of us? If I think that the
formulae for my organization's membership is "too complicated" can I also
get my fees waived?
In voicing a strong objection to this policy because it is unfair to the
rest of the APNIC membership, I would like to propose a change to the APNIC
policy process - namely that _all_ policy proposals be put to the entire
membership of APNIC with a one member one online vote mechanism, and that
final approval by the EC be conditional upon a majority of all the APNIC
members voting in favour of the proposal.
At least this policy proposal will prevent the current meeting stacking by
NIRs, who then abuse the process by voting themselves fee waivers!
Stephan Millet