Re: RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re:
> I think the we miss one support vote,in fact the statistic number is
>
>
>
> 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members)
> 1 persons supported the proposal.( non-NIR)
> 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR)
> 4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members)
>
> Please be careful to make survey
If you mean about the support expressed from Ram, I have counted as "1
person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR) ". In anycase, I
have not judged consensus simply in terms of numbers, but also looked
into the discussions on the mailing list when I made the decision.
Izumi
> Tao Chen
> CNNIC
>
>
>>2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chanki Park" <ckp at nic dot or dot kr>
> To: "'Izumi Okutani'" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
> Cc: "'David Chen'" <david at twnic dot net dot tw>; <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>; <sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net>
> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 9:50 AM
> Subject: ()RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"
>
>
>
>>>Hi Chanki,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period
>>>>because the observation is only that narrow period.
>>>>(The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were
>>>
>>>totally ignored)
>>>
>>>>BIG MISTAKE!!!
>>>
>>>According to my understanding of the process, the whole idea of having
>>>the final comment period on the mailing list is to confirm if it is
>>>really okay to go ahead with the meeting consensus. If there are
>>>substantial objections on the mailing list, the meeting
>>>consensus can be
>>>reversed.
>>
>>Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial
>>enough to reverse the process?
>>
>>
>>>>So the conclusion had to be something like this :
>>>>
>>>>Reasoning
>>>>1. The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
>>>>2. The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
>>>>3. It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during
>>>
>>>8 week comment
>>>
>>>>period.
>>>> "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)"
>>>
>>>>conclusion
>>>>There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but
>>>
>>>consensus has been
>>>
>>>>reached.
>>>>
>>>>Comments are welcomed on above observations.
>>>>
>>>>IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to
>>>>APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through
>>>>proper steps with consensus.
>>>>(There were some chances to proposal, but it went through
>>>
>>>as it is now)
>>>
>>>>Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
>>>
>>>I understand you have a different opinion over whether the
>>>objections on
>>>the mailing list was "substantial", but this is just a
>>>difference in our
>>>opinions. I can't declare consensus when I believe more
>>>discussions are
>>>needed.
>>>
>>
>>You have to modify the announcement and declare it again.
>>Because it contains SERIOUS LOGICAL error.
>>
>>As I mentioned earlier you only observed small part but concluded in full,
>>which means you only looked eyes but described whole face. There is
>>no credence in that description.
>>
>>Two errors have to be fixed.
>>1. The logical error(observing small part but concluding in full,)
>>2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1.
>>
>>
>>>I'm sure your opinion on the mailing list will be reviewed by the EC
>>>too, so why don't we leave it upto the EC to make the final decision?
>>
>>The proposal can not go to EC unless you withdraw your announcement
>>and correct the mistake and publish.
>>
>>Please, correct the mistakes.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Chanki
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>sig-nir mailing list
>>sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>