[sig-nir] Re:sig-nir Digest, Vol 16, Issue 5
Thank you very much for voicing your opinion to this proposal.
>I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the
>NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the
>entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy
>proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour
I feel you have prejudice against NIRs.The fact that many NIRs send
colleagues to APNIC meeting indicates NIRs are the most active group
in APNIC communities. NIR did a lot of things to promote Internet
development in AP region. We assist APNIC to make survey of internet
resourcein our nation or region, to hold training meeting and get
feedback from local ISPs to APNIC in order to improve APNIC's service.
We provide local service to local ISPs. In fact,ISPs would like get
service from NIRs and they are satisfied with NIR's service as well.
NIRs need respect and suggestion but not prejudice.
Each NIR is the representative of the local ISPs in its country. They
say what the ISPs want it to say and do what the the ISPs want it to do.
When APNIC members do not have to fear large amounts of pre address fee,
NIR's member must make difficult decision whether they must pay large
amounts of pre address fee to get enough addresses or use private addresses
to avoid pre address fee. OK, you can say "it is none of your business", but
we could not keep silent. Abolishing IPv6 pre address fee almost make no
impact on APNIC financial status(1% of APNIC's revenue,and I believe APNIC
will continue to develop with the grouth of member's number), but it can
provide local ISPs better environment to get enough addresses, the policy
will promote IPv6 deployment,that is a good thing for AP region.
Dong Yan
CNNIC (China Ineternet Network Information Center)
----- Original Message -----
From: <sig-nir-request at lists dot apnic dot net>
To: <sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 10:00 AM
Subject: sig-nir Digest, Vol 16, Issue 5
> Send sig-nir mailing list submissions to
> sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sig-nir-request at lists dot apnic dot net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sig-nir-owner at lists dot apnic dot net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of sig-nir digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "Abolishing IPv6
> per address fee for NIRs" (Stephan Millet)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:59:02 +1000
> From: Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net>
> Subject: [sig-nir] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001]
> "Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs"
> To: sig-nir at apnic dot net, sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Message-ID: <200509230959.02640.stephan at telstra dot net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I wish to voice my strong objection to this proposed policy.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> sig-nir mailing list
> sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>
>
> End of sig-nir Digest, Vol 16, Issue 5
> **************************************