[sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision of PROP-0
I'm now writing with my personal capability.
Please notice that EC's statement which I made advised you
all that the process for this particular proposal was over.
Unfortunately that won't fit your thought, but I'd like to
ask you to cease this discussion on this particular proposal,
respecting Chairs' conclusion, and start substantial
discussion toward APNIC21.
I guess that the summarization which you said you would give
us later will repeat your perspective which have been
presented several times.
Your argument is, in short, Chairs' conclusion of no consensus
is a MISTAKE or SERIOUS ERROR. You've repeated these words
many times.
I don't think you understand APNIC process in a good shape.
Save's message on Thusday November 24 explain that;
| Answers to 1 & 2 below is described in the APNIC Policy Development
| Process document:
| http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/policy-development.html
|
| > 1. Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
|
| "When the "comment period" has expired, the appropriate SIG Chair
| (and Co-chairs) will decide whether the discussions on the mailing
| list represent continued consensus."
|
| > 2. What is the meaning of "consensus"?
|
| "Consensus is defined as "general agreement" as observed by the Chair
| of the meeting." and on the mailing list:
|
| "Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial
| objections raised during the "comment period"
|
| It is the chair's responsibility to judge this.
Speaking along the process;
With these sentenses, I as well as many other people, can
interpret that Chairs' conclusion reflected their observation
that there hadn't been the continued consensus but had
substantial objections. Again I as well as many other people
naturally agree on this conclusion.
Unfortunately your view is different from Chairs' as well as
mine, but I'd like to see that you respect Chairs' decision
for this particular proposal at APNIC20, then discuss within
SIG mailingist including people who have already volunteered
toward the consensus at APNIC21.
If you think current process has serious flaw you can propose
a process revision. Yes it may have something which should
be fixed
Speaking along the substance;
I have been working on NIR issues for six years at APNIC.
and have seen sometimes non-NIR and NIR members' interests
conflicted time to time, especially in terms of the fee,
these two take different systems which may conflict.
Moreover sometimes I hear someone arguing that NIRs are too
complecated and should be discontinued (exaggerated? anyway
in such direction ).
I think NIRs, dedicated professionals for registry operations,
should demonstrate that they operate APNIC processes in
reasonable manner. We shouldn't play tugs of war with non
NIR members but convince them how reasonable our proposal is.
I'm afraid we NIRs were not enough in this point this time,
Now I can find several points to be technically improved in
this proposal.
NIRs may try again to propose waiver of IPv6 PAR. On the
other hand, I am really concerned with a long-term solution
with new NIR fee structure and JPNIC will work hard. Thank
you in advance for your cooperation.
Kind Regards,
-----
MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department
maem at maem dot org , maem at nic dot ad dot jp
In message <200512010116.jB11GKw15095 at mail.nic dot or dot kr>
"RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision of PROP-028-v001"
""Chanki Park" <ckp at nic dot or dot kr>" wrote:
| Dear all,
|
| Jeff is right.
|
| This is really bad policy making process.
|
| I will try to summarize what went wrong and post it on the list.
|
| Regards,
|
| Chanki Park
|
| >
| > MAEMURA and all,
| >
| > I see. Well "Consensus" decided by fiat is still not consensus.
| > Unless such can be definitively measured, a consensus cannot
| > exist in reality.
| >
| > Anyone's judgment is subject to question or scrutiny, anyone's!
| >
| > This is bad policy making...
| >
| > MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
| >
| > > Dear all,
| > >
| > > During its telephone conference meeting of 25 November 2005,
| > > and APNIC EC discussed the current situation regarding
| > > proposal "prop-028-v001", calling for the abolition of per-
| > > address fees for NIRs.
| > >
| > > The EC recognised that under the APNIC policy development
| > > process there is no requirement for this matter to be
| > > discussed by the EC, because the SIG chair has reached a
| > > judgement of "no consensus" on this matter
| > >
| > > The EC however discussed the matter, and it saw no reason to
| > > question the judgement of the SIG chair regarding consensus
| > > within the NIR SIG.
| > >
| > > It must be concluded therefore that the decision of the SIG
| > > chair stands, and that further discussion of the proposal
| > > will continue on the sig-nir mailing list toward the
| > > consensus in the next APNIC21.
| > >
| > > Regards,
| > >
| > > MAEMURA Akinori
| > > Chair, APNIC Executive Council
| > > * 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
| >
| > Regards,
| > --
| > Jeffrey A. Williams
| > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
| > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
| > Abraham Lincoln
| >
| > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
| > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
| >
| > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
| > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
| > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
| > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
| > ===============================================================
| > Updated 1/26/04
| > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
| > IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
| > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
| > E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
| > Registered Email addr with the USPS
| > Contact Number: 214-244-4827
| >
| >
| > * 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
| >
|
| * 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
|